TexasCHLforum.com

I had thought I remembered Mr. Cotton (while in Dallas) say that a common myth is that "you will be sued after a justified shoot."

However, my mother and wife just finished their CHL class, and it was made clear to them by the instructor that even though it is the lesser of the two evils, they will no doubt be sued by the BG's family or someone. A local judge attending the class agreed.

Now I question my memory. Did I misunderstand Mr. Cotton?

Broge5 wrote:I had thought I remembered Mr. Cotton (while in Dallas) say that a common myth is that "you will be sued after a justified shoot."

However, my mother and wife just finished their CHL class, and it was made clear to them by the instructor that even though it is the lesser of the two evils, they will no doubt be sued by the BG's family or someone. A local judge attending the class agreed.

Now I question my memory. Did I misunderstand Mr. Cotton?

First, the new Castle Doctrine should limit most lawsuits on a justified shoot.

Second, it would depend on how justified justified is, and how much money you have. Shooting a person who has just killed 5 people and is in the process of killing more is much more different than killing the father of three, over a parking space dispute, even if both turn out to be justified.

I do know the first CHL to use justified deadly force (Hale), was sued.

I honestly can't remember reading about a bona fide defender being sued in Texas, in the five years or so that I've been following this issue online.

I believe it's false to say either that you will be sued or you can't be sued. It's rare. As someone suggested in another thread, more rare than being struck by lightning.

- Jim

If you do something that makes some one see $$$$ signs then anything is possiable.

Wildscar wrote:If you do something that makes some one see $$$$ signs then anything is possiable.

That's true, but most people don't have enough net assets to make suing them worthwhile.

- Jim

Most wrongful death or unjustified shooting lawsuits are brought for LEO-involved shootings. That's mostly because of the deep pockets of the city involved and also the fact that LEO shootings tend to be more legally "complicated". (Could the officer have waited for more backup, used a Taser, etc. Did he follow all PD rules for the use of deadly force? Was racial discrimination a factor?)

Much of Ayoob's writings on the subject of civil liability relate to LEO-involved shootings.

Armed citizen shootings tend to be much simpler in that regard. Also, in many/most cases, the armed citizen is a more sympathetic figure than a LEO. The average person can identify with being in the armed citizen's perdicament more than they can identify with an LEO.

And as I said, the new Castle Doctrine significantly raises the bar.

One thing I have not seen discussed is that as far as I can tell, the Castle Doctrine applies to LEO as well as armed citizens. Unless I missed it, I can't find anything that exempts LEO from the new law. So it looks like the law also raises the bar for people wanting to sue cities and/or LEO's in the aftermath of a shooting.

I think that if the shooting is justified, the city and LEO will have civil immunity just as armed citizens do.

Comments?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I think that if the shooting is justified, the city and LEO will have civil immunity just as armed citizens do.

I agree.

This is the enrolled version of SB 378. The Texas Statutes on the web have not been updated yet:

Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

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.

In the case of government agents, however, plaintiffs can take another route: a federal civil rights violation.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Wildscar wrote:If you do something that makes some one see $$$$ signs then anything is possiable.

That's true, but most people don't have enough net assets to make suing them worthwhile.

I'm not a lawyer but I was once told, that in most Texan suits they can't take your house, your car, your 401k your IRA or attach your pay. So most peoples biggest assets are pretty well protected. Unfortunately these same laws make it tough to collect when involved with an uninsured motorist.

Liberty wrote:I'm not a lawyer but I was once told, that in most Texan suits they can't take your house, your car, your 401k your IRA or attach your pay.

They definitely can't take your homestead. I don't know about the other stuff.

They could go after a second house, boat, etc.

- Jim

They could go after a second house, boat, etc.

Plus anything more than a dozen cattle, 120 fowl, and two fireams.

Texas Property Code 41.001 & 42.001

Wildscar wrote:If you do something that makes some one see $$$$ signs then anything is possiable.

This is why we all must carry Hi-Points.

I would have to say that I would think there is a very common myth that every time you do something you will get sued for it. This is even more true for shootings than many other things.

Yes, you do open up a certain amount of liability when you get involved in a shooting. The new law makes it pretty clear that if the shooting was justified, you will win the lawsuit. I will remind everyone that it does not stop the lawsuit (it takes the suit to see if you were justified) but just makes it easy for you to win. In these cases, most plaintiff attorneys will not take the case since there will be no money in it for them.

I also agree that most of the lawsuits you see for shootings are against LEO's. And those cases are to get to the agency for the deep pockets. Since you actually have little cash for the attorney and plaintiff to get, there is little realistic chance of being sued, IMHO. Even with the police department's pockets, I have not yet been sued in my whole career. And that was with three line of duty deaths I was involved in.

I had not considered the implication of the liability change for LEO's before. That is interesting. Of course, as was pointed out, it doesn't apply to federal civil rights cases and most police cases go that route. If you or the agency is found liable under federal civil rights laws, there is a much higher award possible.

srothstein wrote: I had not considered the implication of the liability change for LEO's before. That is interesting. Of course, as was pointed out, it doesn't apply to federal civil rights cases and most police cases go that route. If you or the agency is found liable under federal civil rights laws, there is a much higher award possible.

Can a private citizen (i.e. not an LEO) be sued under federal civil rights laws?

srothstein wrote:The new law makes it pretty clear that if the shooting was justified, you will win the lawsuit. I will remind everyone that it does not stop the lawsuit (it takes the suit to see if you were justified) but just makes it easy for you to win.

Wouldn't the determination of whether or not the shoot was justified be a criminal determination instead of a civil one?

If it is justified, you either don't face any charges, or you are found not guilty. If it is not justified, you are found guilty of a criminal offense.

I'm certainly not an expert in this, but since the defense to being sued in civil court is part of the criminal statutes it would make sense that it is referring to a criminal determination of whether it was justifiable or not.

I would expect that if the prosecutor decides that it was a good shoot and then I am sued in civil court, my lawyer would point out the fact that the shooting was ruled as justifiable by law enforcement and therefore the suit should be dismissed.

Am I confused?

You could be but it would be very hard. Section 1983 says you can be sued if you violate someone's rights under color of law, so you would need to be doing it in some type of fashion to make it look like you were enforcing the law.

Cops mostly get sued for the concept of excessive force being an unreasonable seizure. Since the Fourth Amendment does not apply to citizens, it would be almost impossible for you to be sued that way.