Are you Liable if...

[Hammerhead]

So there isn't an example of any adjudication for it. That's not surprising. Thanks HP.

 

[24Carat]

Guys,

There's another layer of complexity - Indiana doesn't have an official record of legislative intent. It is not too harsh to say that it absolutely doesn't matter what the author(s) of the legislation intended, it only matters what was written. The courts will only look at the same letters, words, and sentences that you are. Then, they will interpret them within the framework of whatever case is before them.

So, getting back to my prior post, I am not familiar with any case in Indiana that interpreted that statute in the context of a civil suit brought against someone who claimed protection from a civil suit under that statutory provision. We won't know the answer unless and until that kind of case gets brought.

That's a long way of saying, "Your guess is as good as mine."

Getting back to KF's point, there is no law out there that will prevent you from being sued. At that point, it depends on the facts, the lawyers, and the court (and the court of appeals) to decide whether you are protected.

There's a phrase "issue of first impression" to signal when a court is looking at an issue for the first time. As far as I am aware, a self-defending defendant in a civil suit from the would-be-aggressor plaintiff, would be such an issue of first impression in the Indiana appellate courts.

I am open to correction on this, though, as I've not researched it. If someone wants to hire me to do that, we can make those arrangements. But, the answer may still end up being, "It depends."

I agree totally. I erred in being clear about my train of thought. My use of the word intent was inaccurate seeing as we are talking in layman legalese. My thought runs like this: Much time and thought was invested to craft this legislation (hopefully all legislation). I think it found it's conception in the need to hold harmless the LTCH holder from jeopardy (remove the "chill" factor). Why would the authors take a half measure step and address only a portion of the spectrum of jeopardy? If that is the case the statute is severely flawed and I don't think this is the case. "No Legal Jeopardy" is an all encompassing concept. If exceptions were applicable they would have been noted in a subsection. Exclusions and exceptions seem to make up the biggest portions in Code to leave no room for misinterpretation.

 

[T.Lex]

My thought runs like this: Much time and thought was invested to craft this legislation (hopefully all legislation).

You give the legislative process FAR more credit than it deserves.

At the risk of freeing your inner cynic, I would encourage you to come to the Statehouse and watch part - any part - of the next General Assembly. Or stop by your local City/Town/County council meeting.

I think the reality is that, on those rare occasions when the civil liability issue comes up, it likely gets settled for a low amount by self-defender's insurance company. Or it gets dismissed and no appeal is taken.

Part of me wonders if the Indiana plaintiffs' bar recognizes that such a case would be a difficult case to win, and the cases just aren't brought. At least, a man can dream....

 

[cbseniour]

Odds are thee law isn't going to come after you because you were in fear of your life and acted accordingly. However, there is a big difference between criminal law and civil. IF he can find a lawyer to bring a case for undo harm, mental suffering, infringement of his civil rights,consortium or anything else then it becomes a matter of who can produce the propondence of evidence and who the jury wants to believe.
If anything like that ever happens try to get the names and addresses of everyone in the diner and a commitment from them to testify on your behalf.

 

[24Carat]

Probably the best defense is to waltz into any proceedings with ones impeccable character (which all INGOers have) on display!

 

[Hammerhead]

So, that means dressing up like Printcraft's avatar, right?

 

[24Carat]

So, that means dressing up like Printcraft's avatar, right?

Probably wouldn't work with my "Ample Ballerina" physique.

I'm thinking the Skipper from Gilligan's Island. A man in uniform carry's that swashbuckling air.

 

[CSORuger]

 

[kingpin1779]

ok one thing for sure !!! they cant sue if you dont react and are killed !!!

 

[grube555]

Never shoot to wound! 3 shots? Get a bigger round!

Ambulance chasers will take any case! The wounded man is probably one of the dumb asses on Occupy Wall St that is complaining they cant get a job! "UH..I was wounded while I was robbing people...can I have some free money?"

 

[Eddie]

I've researched it on Lexis and find no cases referencing that section.

Same result using Casemaker.

I can say first hand that units of local government, like some businesses, experience a near constant stream of frivolous lawsuits. Such suits are more rare between individuals because most individuals lack the personal wealth to pay off even nuisance value in a lawsuit. What I think would be more likely with a paralyzed robber as described in the OP would be a suit of some type that named the restaurant, the property owner, the shooter and everybody else and their brother that could be named with a straight face in hopes that someone could pay up.

These days a lot of personal injury litigation appears to be aimed not at winning a trial, but rather at merely surviving summary judgment and then squeezing for a settlement.

The problem that would be faced by an individual has been pointed out by some posters already. While a unit of government or a business will likely have their own attorneys or insurance that will provide an attorney, an individual might be forced to fall back on their own resources to defend themselves. True, there are people who can competently present a defense in court for themself, but a suit of the type described in the OP would likely not be in the nature of a small claim or family court matter. The self-represented defendant would risk losing merely by failing to follow one of several rules regarding the contents of their paperwork.

As Kirk put it, there is no "Aegis Statute" that stops the suit from being filed. If there is a legal immunity then it needs to be asserted and possibly tested on appeal which will propably mean a cost to the defendant.

 

[24Carat]

Thank you and repped.

 

[24Carat]

Guys,

There's another layer of complexity - Indiana doesn't have an official record of legislative intent. It is not too harsh to say that it absolutely doesn't matter what the author(s) of the legislation intended, it only matters what was written. The courts will only look at the same letters, words, and sentences that you are. Then, they will interpret them within the framework of whatever case is before them.

So, getting back to my prior post, I am not familiar with any case in Indiana that interpreted that statute in the context of a civil suit brought against someone who claimed protection from a civil suit under that statutory provision. We won't know the answer unless and until that kind of case gets brought.

That's a long way of saying, "Your guess is as good as mine."

Getting back to KF's point, there is no law out there that will prevent you from being sued. At that point, it depends on the facts, the lawyers, and the court (and the court of appeals) to decide whether you are protected.

There's a phrase "issue of first impression" to signal when a court is looking at an issue for the first time. As far as I am aware, a self-defending defendant in a civil suit from the would-be-aggressor plaintiff, would be such an issue of first impression in the Indiana appellate courts.

I am open to correction on this, though, as I've not researched it. If someone wants to hire me to do that, we can make those arrangements. But, the answer may still end up being, "It depends." [/COLOR]

Sorry for the resurrection but this thread discussion was / is too important to let it lie dormant.

The above highlighted section has concerned me until recently when Kirk posted a link to Starr Vs State. Though there may not be " Indiana doesn't have an official record of legislative intent." Intent in statute has been addressed in Starr:

"statutes should be interpreted in order to give efficient operation to the expressed intent of the legislature. Id. The best evidence of legislative intent is the language of the statute, giving all words their plain and ordinary meaning unless otherwise indicated by the statute. Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 77 (Ind. 2001). Statutes relating to the same general subject matter are in pari materia and should be construed together so as to produce a harmonious statutory scheme. Sanders v. State, 466 N.E.2d 424, 428 (Ind. 1984)."

I feel my argument stands, legal jeopardy is inclusive of civil as well as criminal action. I therefore am not chilled from action.

"(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary."

 

[Hammerhead]

Makes sense to me.