Civil immunity.....settle this for us!

[flintknapper]

A person on another forum is of the opinion that the new castle doctrine and civil immunity feature means that a person can not be sued. I believe they CAN be sued in a civil suit, but simply won't win.

Who can straighten this out.

Posts:

Other person:

A real test of the law will be when said thug's family attempts to sue for damages. I would love to be a fly on the wall when their attorney informs them that they can't because of the Castle Doctrine Law.

Flint:

I don't believe the new Castle doctrine provides that a person "can't" sue.

Anyone reserves that right.

What it does do (if the shoot is justified), is to make it nearly impossible for the person bringing the suit to win.

It would be very difficult to get an attorney to take a case he had little to no chance of winning.

Other 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.

Its quite clear. They can't sue. Knowing one's rights in essential to exercising them or commenting on them.

Flint:

Yes, I am aware of Sec. 83.001.

I think you have forgotten "where" this is determined. (In court).

Here is the answer from a Texas Attorney on just this subject:

Quote:
A lawsuit can still be filed, but the defendant will win and will do so early in the process. There is a good chance the defendant will be awarded attorney fees as well, but this isn't guaranteed. Some judges flat won't award attorneys fees, some will. More importantly, no attorney is going to take a case and spend money on it when they cannot win.

A law cannot be passed that prevents someone from filing a suit. It would be unconstitutional, as it should be. We can't tell people you have no access to the courts to address grievances.

Other person:

Why, if laws against suing are unconstitutional, does TX State law prohibit unjustly accused persons who have served time from suing the State of TX for compensation? It makes sense that a lawyer would say such suits are unconstitutional, that is their bread and butter. But just because they say it, does not make it so. Attorneys say many things. One said O.J. was innocent...of burglary.

Also, where in the Constitution is bringing lawsuits for compensation guaranteed? I think lawyers are twisting the Constitution to their own ends.

Comment: I believe he is incorrect...but I don't wish to engage in any protracted arguments (had my fill of those). Too, I don't feel like running down all the laws to present to him. Can someone make it simple and straighten this out.

If I am mistaken, then I need to know. If he is misinformed, he needs to know.

Thanks, Flint.

[Liberty]

Whether the shooting was really justified under the laws is one of the things that could be contested. There might be a civil trial to determine whether the use of force was justified under Chapter 9. It seems as though this could only be ultimately decided in the courts as part of a suit.

suppose ..
Someone shoots someone. seems like a justified shoot. 2 years pass there is no grand jury.

BGs family finds some evidence that might indicate thate that maybe the shoot wasn't so justified. Would not the family of the BG has right to their day in court to determine if the shoot was justified under Chapter 9?

[Nazrat]

flintknapper, I am also a Texas attorney. You are right. That person knows as much of the state law as I do of the laws of thermodynamics. Not much. :)

Ask your buddy about how effective the doctrine of sovereign immunity is in preventing suits against the state of Texas. He should have no problem understanding immunity after that.

[lrb111]

I think the line you are looking for is "Civil remedies are unaffected.".
Which means civil suits are still possible.

[PAR]

Since he brings up O.J., remind him that O.J. was found innocent in criminal court but liable in a civil action.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Since he brings up O.J., remind him that O.J. was found innocent in criminal court but liable in a civil action.

Bad example. CA has no civil immunity statute, and OJ was not acting in lawful self defense, so immunity wouldn't apply even if it did have such a statute.

But I agree that our civil immunity doesn't ban lawsuits, it just makes them so difficult to win that almost no one will try.

[Nazrat]

Here is the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution:

All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury
done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

Texas Constitution

lrb111, you are using that phrase incorrectly. A civil remedy is the cure for a cause of action. Each cause of action is tied to a number of available remedies. If civil remedies are unaffected, it only states that all available remedies are still available.

The Civil Immunity section of the CPRC means that, in cause of a suit being filed, the defendant will file an early motion, i.e, summary judgment, to dispose of the issue of liability. After the court grants the motion for summary judgment, all causes of action that are affected by the statute are resolved. Any other basis for liability would then proceed.

You can always file suit if you can pay the filing fee. You cannot always win the suit that you file. Section 83.001 makes it impossible to win a case affected by that statute. It does not make it impossible to sue.

[seamusTX]

You can always file suit if you can pay the filing fee. You cannot always win the suit that you file. Section 83.001 makes it impossible to win a case affected by that statute. It does not make it impossible to sue.

Thank you for putting that down in black and white.

A lot of people think that it is impossible to file a suit in some cases. That would mean that a clerk of the court could refuse a filing.

- Jim

[flintknapper]

Here is the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution:

All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury
done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

Texas Constitution

lrb111, you are using that phrase incorrectly. A civil remedy is the cure for a cause of action. Each cause of action is tied to a number of available remedies. If civil remedies are unaffected, it only states that all available remedies are still available.

The Civil Immunity section of the CPRC means that, in cause of a suit being filed, the defendant will file an early motion, i.e, summary judgment, to dispose of the issue of liability. After the court grants the motion for summary judgment, all causes of action that are affected by the statute are resolved. Any other basis for liability would then proceed.

You can always file suit if you can pay the filing fee. You cannot always win the suit that you file. Section 83.001 makes it impossible to win a case affected by that statute. It does not make it impossible to sue.

Thank you Sir!

[lrb111]

Here is the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution:

All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury
done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

Texas Constitution

lrb111, you are using that phrase incorrectly. A civil remedy is the cure for a cause of action. Each cause of action is tied to a number of available remedies. If civil remedies are unaffected, it only states that all available remedies are still available.

The Civil Immunity section of the CPRC means that, in cause of a suit being filed, the defendant will file an early motion, i.e, summary judgment, to dispose of the issue of liability. After the court grants the motion for summary judgment, all causes of action that are affected by the statute are resolved. Any other basis for liability would then proceed.

You can always file suit if you can pay the filing fee. You cannot always win the suit that you file. Section 83.001 makes it impossible to win a case affected by that statute. It does not make it impossible to sue.

Thank you, Straight legal advise is always appreciated. If I ever win the lottery I may go back to school for it.

[Venus Pax]

To my knowledge, this has not been tested in Texas since Sept. 1. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Most of our legal minds here are of the opinion that A) your attacker's family can take you to civil court, but B) they don't stand a great chance of winning if the shooting was considered self-defense.

I hope they're correct, but only God knows and only time will tell.

[extremist]

Question 21 on the new 2007 CHL Test:

"You still could be sued in civil court even if you are justified in using deadly force"

All you instructors out there, if you have been to the renewal class this year, you know what the answer key says.

They were very adamant about pointing this out in class (Oct. 11th class).

The correct answer is affected by the new "castle doctrine" law.

James

[Photoman]

To my knowledge, this has not been tested in Texas since Sept. 1. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

Most of our legal minds here are of the opinion that A) your attacker's family can take you to civil court, but B) they don't stand a great chance of winning if the shooting was considered self-defense.

I hope they're correct, but only God knows and only time will tell.

Don't you just love living under case law. NOT!

[txinvestigator]

Question 21 on the new 2007 CHL Test:

"You still could be sued in civil court even if you are justified in using deadly force"

All you instructors out there, if you have been to the renewal class this year, you know what the answer key says.

They were very adamant about pointing this out in class (Oct. 11th class).

The correct answer is affected by the new "castle doctrine" law.

James

I just returned from that class. The key, which lists false as the answer, is WRONG. You CAN be sued, as evidenced by the posts of FACT in this thread by an attorney.

The question should have referenced civil immunity, but it did not. As written the answer is true.

[Greybeard]

Quote: "As written the answer is true."

And that's what the answer key (given to us on Aug. 7) says. Then references "Chapter 9.06" ...

Quote:

"They were very adamant about pointing this out in class (Oct. 11th class).

The correct answer is affected by the new "castle doctrine" law."

The only they they were adament about in our Aug. 7 class was that Ms. O'Shaw wa not going to talk about the Castle Doctrine ...

Holmes did say after we took it that they were working on a new test ... But I've not got diddly from 'em in the mail ...