What if you are being sued for shooting someone?

[ftncityfatboy]

was sitting and pondering the other day, thinking that should you ever have to use your firearm and actually shoot someone for whatever reason, chances are you will be sued. But my thought was: if I could be sued for shooting someone who was trying to do me or my family harm, why could I not sue the perp for the emotional stress and mental anguish I will most likely suffer for having to shoot him/her? everyone will tell you the average joe is not wired to inflict lethal force on someone, thus most likely will suffer some side effects. if your perp wants to sue you, then sue them. just thinking about this for no particular reason, just thought I'd get your responses....

[TNTitan]

I dont think you can be civilly sued by the perp in TN if you were defending yourself or family from serious bodily harm or death (re Castle Doctrine). Maybe by bystanders hit with stray bullets...

[Guest tnpanscraper]

They say that dead men can't testify in court...

[Guest m&pc9]

Im sure you can sue the robber, But I think they will not have anything to sue for.

[Guest tnpanscraper]

Sue them for future scores if they can still function after recovery...lol..

[Guest mosinon]

Im sure you can sue the robber, But I think they will not have anything to sue for.

+1

Though if you get Bill Gates to rob you...

[Fallguy]

Anyone can be sued by anyone else at anytime for just about anything.

Yes a perp can sue you for shooting him, however the law says if it is ruled a justifiable shoot, he has to pay for your lawyer, any of you lost wages and any other expenses incurred by you in defending the suit. 39-11-622

So I have thought in the back of my mind that should keep most lawyers from taking the case unless it was somehow a slam dunk.

But at the end of the day the old saying, "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." means a lot as well.

But if I were overly worried about being sued, I wouldn't go armed in the first place.

[Guest PapaB]

You could sue the perp, if they have anything, but if you had to shoot them you'd be better off suing their next of kin.

[Guest Todd@CIS]

TCA 29-34-201. Injuries suffered in committing or attempting to commit felony on property of another — Recovery barred — Scope of immunity for one injuring a perpetrator of a criminal offense. —

(a) Any person who is injured while committing a felony or attempting to commit a felony on the real property of another is barred from recovery of actual or punitive damages resulting from injuries, either accidentally or intentionally inflicted by the owner, lawful occupier or tenant of such property, which the person receives while committing or attempting to commit a felony.

( (1) A person who accidentally or intentionally causes property damage to or inflicts injury or death upon the perpetrator of a criminal offense is absolutely immune from civil liability for or the payment of monetary damages from such person's actions if at the time such damage, injury or death occurred:

(A) The person was preventing or attempting to prevent the perpetrator from committing the offense or was apprehending the perpetrator of the offense; and

( The perpetrator was committing one (1) or more of the offenses specified in subdivisions ©(1)-(9) or was attempting to commit one (1) or more of the offenses specified in subdivision ©(10).

(2) The immunity conferred by this subsection shall only apply to property damage caused to or injury or death inflicted upon a perpetrator of an enumerated offense and only under the conditions set out in this subsection. Such immunity shall not be construed to extend to property damage caused to or injury or death inflicted upon a bystander or other person who is not the perpetrator of an enumerated offense.

© The offenses for which such immunity applies are:

(1) Any criminal homicide;

(2) Aggravated rape;

(3) Kidnapping;

(4) Aggravated kidnapping;

(5) Especially aggravated kidnapping;

(6) Especially aggravated burglary;

(7) Aggravated robbery;

(8) Especially aggravated robbery;

(9) Carjacking; and

(10) Attempt to commit first or second degree murder.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Todd@CIS

[garethsk]

At the HCP class I took on Saturday this issue was brought up time and time again. Every bullet has a financial obligation (or a lawyer) attached to it.

Even had a rep for Pre-Paid Legal come in and talk to us for 15 mins or so about pre-paid legal services, not so much regarding the person you shoot, but any damage you might cause with bullets that miss, injuries to bystanders, the FAMILY of the BG suing you, etc, etc.

[E4 No More]

Back in the day as a police officer I was informed by the prosecuting attourney that the goal of a suit was to get you into a Federal court rather than a State court. Federal courts pay-out much better. Not being an attourney, I'm not going to speculate on the possibility of how well the law cited above will prevent you from going Federal, but I'm not going to bank on their protection.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Damn, Ron, I thought you had another "visitor" at your place when I read the title to this thread.

[molonlabetn]

If I'm being sued by someone I had to fire upon in defense... I'd work on my accuracy.

But really, as stated above, in TN there is no civil liability if the shoot was found to be justifiable... I'm not worried about intentionally shooting somebody who didn't have it coming, but as far as accidents go, that's a good reason to have proper insurance coverage, and the number to a lawyer experienced in those types of cases.

[ftncityfatboy]

thanks for all the input guys. I appreciate all the posts. I like most all of you have thought about all the possibilities prior to ever obtaining my carry permit. I have counted all costs and believe self protection and family protection is worth more than the possibility of being sued. The thought of being sued would never keep me from protecting myself or my family or my fellow man. The only reason I ask this was because in our society everyone is sue crazy and looking to get something from anybody, so I was just wondering about turning the tables of the people who will claim they have been a "victim" even though you were their victim. Thanks to all who posted the law concerning this issue. This is the reason I joined this forum and am supporting it because of the advise given on different threads.

[Oh Shoot]

Back in the day as a police officer I was informed by the prosecuting attourney that the goal of a suit was to get you into a Federal court rather than a State court. Federal courts pay-out much better. Not being an attourney, I'm not going to speculate on the possibility of how well the law cited above will prevent you from going Federal, but I'm not going to bank on their protection.

I don't claim much legal knowledge either, but why would one be in federal court with a personal lawsuit?

It's my understanding that you'd have to be suing the federal govt. to do that, or possibly wind up there after all state appeal courts were exhausted.

Patrick?

- OS

[E4 No More]

I don't claim much legal knowledge either, but why would one be in federal court with a personal lawsuit?

It's my understanding that you'd have to be suing the federal govt. to do that, or possibly wind up there after all state appeal courts were exhausted.

Patrick?

- OS

It's the goal; not necessarily the reality. Like I said, it was when I was a policeman, (16 years ago). Easier to get a policeman into a federal case than a civilian, but to get it into federal you have to break a federal law. The feds can negate the castle doctrine by passing a law. Then you'll end up in federal.

[Oh Shoot]

It's the goal; not necessarily the reality. Like I said, it was when I was a policeman, (16 years ago). Easier to get a policeman into a federal case than a civilian, but to get it into federal you have to break a federal law. The feds can negate the castle doctrine by passing a law. Then you'll end up in federal.

Breaking a federal law becomes a federal criminal case.

We're talking about civil case here. If you sue me, the only two ways I can think of that it would be filed in federal court is if I work for the federal govt. and you name the federal govt. as a co-defendant and also, I guess some kinds of civil rights violations could go straight to federal court. Then again, I think civil rights stuff falls under criminal law?

- OS

Edited October 5, 2009 by OhShoot

[E4 No More]

Again, I ain't a lawyer. Breaking a federal law doesn't necessarily mean a criminal case just like speeding is breaking the law, but it's not criminal; it's an infraction, (depending on where you're at, and in Missouri it was an infraction). Your average ordinance carries no criminal penalties associated with a felony or misdemeanor.

In relation to the OP I think it's about denial of a civil liberties or some such thing as that, but all they have to show is that it broke a federal law regardless of whether that law has jail time associated with it or not.

Perhaps a lawyer on here can comment? It wouldn't surprise me if our prosecuting attourney was giving me a crack-headed answer.

[Oh Shoot]

Again, I ain't a lawyer. Breaking a federal law ...

I PM'd Patrick Stegall to perhaps render a legal opinion. I told him to bill YOU.

- OS

[E4 No More]

I know better. He's a nice guy that answered a question for me in the past without charge.

[Guest Revelator]

There are generally two ways to get a case heard in federal court. This is called subject matter jurisdiction. One is for the case to be an issue of federal law, or a federal treaty or the U.S. Constitution. The other is (a)for the plaintiff and defendant to be from different states, and ( the amount being sued over is greater than $75,000. So if you want your case to be in federal court you've got to meet one of these two requirements. That is, the case has got to involve a federal law or a provision of the U.S. Constitution (not a state constitution) OR the parties have to be from different states IN ADDITION TO damages greater than $75,000.

[E4 No More]

There are generally two ways to get a case heard in federal court. This is called subject matter jurisdiction. One is for the case to be an issue of federal law, or a federal treaty or the U.S. Constitution. The other is (a)for the plaintiff and defendant to be from different states, and ( the amount being sued over is greater than $75,000. So if you want your case to be in federal court you've got to meet one of these two requirements. That is, the case has got to involve a federal law or a provision of the U.S. Constitution (not a state constitution) OR the parties have to be from different states IN ADDITION TO damages greater than $75,000.

Thank you very much for your comment on the topic.

[Oh Shoot]

Thank you very much for your comment on the topic.

Yeppers, appreciate it as always Patrick!

- OS