Protection from Civil Suits?

D

DougO83

New member
Ok, my google-fu is rather weak and I did not happen across a thread that answers my question directly. In an SD scenario, even if cleared of any wrongdoing, a shooter can still be held liable in civil court. Because, of course, the BG was getting his/her life together and was a great kid who would never do the horrible things that he/she has been accused of, yada yada yada. Is there any statute that allows immunity for the shooter in this case? I have heard that some states do have a provision that basically states that the shooter who is cleared of criminal wrongdoing is shielded from civil backlash. I am specifically interested in Texas.

ETA: If you have a link to the statute, that would be great. I am coming up with a bunch of nothing useful on teh interwebz so far...


Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Castle Doctrine specifically protects you in a justified SD shooting, but that only applies under CD rules. If you are at Wal-Mart, you are not protected, for example.
 
Castle Doctrine specifically protects you in a justified SD shooting, but that only applies under CD rules. If you are at Wal-Mart, you are not protected, for example.
Click to expand...

In Wal-Mart you are protected under the Stand Your Ground laws or however you want to refer to them. If you shoot someone in a CD or SYG situation and are cleared by that DA and courts etc. this does not mean that the family cannot sue you. However their chances of winning are almost nil and they would have to either find a crazy lawyer or have a very unusual case to go forward with it. The CD and SYG laws say that you are immune from civil suits in such a case and it would be up to the suing party to prove that even though the DA and courts ruled in your favor that they were incorrect. Just say that the DA decided not to prosecute you for the shooting the family could then say that he was incorrect in his ruling and that he had bias against the dead person and all that kinds of stuff and they want their day in court. A ruling of a good shoot does not automatically take you off the hook.

If you were to go to trial with it and found not-guilty then you would have a very strong case even in civil court. If the family still decides to sue and the jury decides in your favor you can be awarded legal fees from the family.

Since most lawyers normally take such cases on a contingency basis depending on how much they win, seeing that it is unlikely that they will win the case they probably will require their fee up front. Seeing as how it is unlikely that the family (being non-PC here) probably have little to pay for a lawyer if he refuses to take the case on a contingency basis, it is unlikely that you will be sued. Your mileage may vary and IANAL.
 
However their chances of winning are almost nil and they would have to either find a crazy lawyer or have a very unusual case to go forward with it.
Click to expand...
Their chances of getting a pretty good settlement and it not even making it to court are pretty good.

you can be awarded legal fees from the family.
Click to expand...
Good luck collecting those awarded fees.
 
In Wal-Mart you are protected under the Stand Your Ground laws or however you want to refer to them.
Click to expand...

Okay, what is the SYG law in Texas that protects you from civil liability in a justified SD shooting?

If you shoot someone in a CD or SYG situation and are cleared by that DA and courts etc. this does not mean that the family cannot sue you.
Click to expand...

First, however, they have to get the shooting ruled as unjustified. If unjustified, then you are no longer protected.
 
The Castle Doctrine will sheild you against criminal suits - legal action by the state - if the DA and courts agree the shooting meets the thresholds of the law. It will not protect you from civil lawsuits by anyone you shoot or their heirs.

Might not be the same in all states, but that's the way I understand it in Arizona and the way it was explained in the Arizona CCW course.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer but his is how I understand things.
There is nothing that can prevent BG or his relatives from filing a law suit. Unlike a criminal trial where there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in civil court there must be a preponderance of evidence to win.

Technically it is possible to be found not guilty in a criminal trial only to be held liable in a civil trial. OJ Simpson is an example of this.
 
IANAL, but it really depends on your state's laws and whether or not they make allowances in their Castle Doctrine laws. Check YOUR state's stautes to determine the answer for yourself.
 
As an example, here is the link for the SC law which prevents prosecution.


http://www.sled.sc.gov/ProtectionOfPeople.aspx?MenuID=CWP

A person who lawfully uses deadly force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known the person is a law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...

BTW, this is not limited to your home. As a CWP holder it extends to your car or even on the street.
 
Last edited:
The Texas law that grants civil immunity in a justified self-defense situation applies whether it occurs in the home or in public. Here is the specific law (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 83.001):

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT
CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007.
Click to expand...

Of course, you are going to have to go to civil court anyway to determine whether the use of deadly force was justified under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code; but this would allow any suit to be dismissed at summary judgement, very early in the process. It also discourages "retribution" suits by making such cases even less attractive.
 
Same law in Florida. If the shooting is justifiable, you cannot be sued in civil court.

Of course, as in Texas, you can still be sued. In Florida, once you win the civil verdict or the case is thrown out, the person suing you gets to pay all of your expenses incurred during the case, including pay from missing work.
 
Lots of incorrect advice in this thread. Each state's laws regarding the civil liability for shooting another person (whether justified under the criminal laws of that state or not) varies, and there is no blanket advice whatsoever which can be given nor accepted. While some states do offer immunity from civil litigation in certain shooting scenarios, there are always limitations and exceptions.

Bottom line is you should expect to get sued if you are involved in a shooting - regardless of the circumstances and justifications you may have.
 
IF you own a house and want to CCW....get an umbrella policy...about $ 125 year for a million dollars in coverage. DONE IF you shoot..you will be sued.

Remember: You shoot to stop They choose...you survived.

The use of deadly force when somebody survives means you did it wrong !

IF you must shoot...do it well. Be the survivor so YOU get to tell the only side of what happened as you HAD to defend yourself.

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6 !

The best feature of an autoloader: The slide locks back when it's time to evaluate !
 
How is that useless? Do you mean to tell me you would stake your liberty and all you own on the so-called expert advice proffered by strangers and laymen on an internet site?

That was the soundest advice posted here, in addition to Mr. Roberts' posting of the relevant Texas statute. Consult someone in your area who actually knows the law.

You might just thank the gentleman and go your way.
 
Texas code

The OP was in Texas, and BR posted the relevant statute. In Texas if the shoot is deemed a legitimate self defense shoot, then the citizen is immune from civil damages. He might, or might not, have to actually go to civil court in response to the suit to plead the case and get it dismissed. The usual practice in Texas is to send a SD shoot to a grand jury for disposition. If no-billed, then it is very unlikely that a civil suit would see the court docket. If the DA simply decides to not file charges without submitting to a grand jury, then there is the possibility that some stupid dead guy's relatives might try their luck at the craps table that is the Texas civil courts.
 
you cannot be sued in civil court.
Click to expand...
NO. The judge SHOULD throw out the case at the first hearing or whatever, after you have spent several thousand dollars, or possibly more, preparing for that first hearing. I can sue anyone for absolutely anything in civil court. I can sue anyone in this thread for causing em distress with their posts and a judge is going to take a look at it before it is tossed.
You can show up and hope the judge tosses the case, but if he doesn't, for whatever reason, and you haven't paid an attorney, who is banking on the judge throwing the case out as the case is a loser if it goes to trial, you are screwed b/c no one worth a darn is taking the case at that point. Just the discovery documents are going to run you a tidy sum and I am pretty sure every court is going to require discovery before the judge will throw it out(I believe this is where you officially introduce the criminal outcome and point to the statute offering protection). It has been a while since I took a law class though, and it wasn't all that in depth to begin with..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top