2 Defenses to Intentional Torts involving Personal Injury Flashcards
Question 6184 (Mixed MBE PQ S1)
A man was drinking at a bar. He started arguing with the man sitting next to him, and the verbal argument quickly escalated into a physical altercation. The two men began punching each other, and then one of the men put on brass knuckles and started to hit the other man. The bartender quickly grabbed a knife from behind the bar, and tried to break up the fight between the two men. The man with the brass knuckles punched the bartender repeatedly. The bartender responded by trying to stab him. However, he accidentally stabbed a woman next to him instead. The woman has filed a battery claim against the bartender to recover damages for the stabbing.
Who will prevail?
A. The bartender, because he was trying to protect himself from the man.
B. The bartender, because he did not intend to stab the woman with the knife.
C. The woman, because the bartender’s intent to stab the man transferred to her.
D. The woman, because the bartender was required to retreat before using deadly force.
A. The bartender, because he was trying to protect himself from the man.
Answer choice A is correct. A person may use deadly force to defend himself if he has a reasonable belief that force sufficient to cause serious bodily injury or death is about to be intentionally inflicted upon him. In this case, the woman will not prevail because the bartender’s use of deadly force, stabbing her with a knife, was reasonable to defend himself from the man’s attack using brass knuckles.
Answer choice C is incorrect because the doctrine of transferred intent is negated if the bartender used force necessary to defend himself from serious bodily injury or death. As stated above, one who acts in self-defense is not liable for accidental injuries to bystanders that occur while he is reasonably acting in self-defense.
Question 1437 (MBE Exam #3 AM)
On a winter day, a youth, seeking refuge from the cold, entered a small neighborhood grocery store without the knowledge of the store’s owner, who was standing at the cash register. Shortly thereafter, the only other person in the store approached the register and requested an item located on a shelf behind the owner. As the owner turned to retrieve the requested item, the individual drew a gun and commanded the owner to give him the money in the register. As the owner turned back toward the customer, the customer fired the gun at her and missed. The owner grappled with the customer and succeeded in knocking the gun out of the customer’s hand. As the customer retrieved his gun, the owner grabbed her own gun, for which she had a valid license. They fired at each other, each missing the other. Although the owner’s actions did not create an unreasonable risk of harm to the youth, the bullet from the owner’s gun nevertheless struck and killed the youth. The estate of the youth filed a wrongful death action against the store owner.
Who will prevail?
A. The store owner, because the owner acted in self-defense.
B. The store owner, because the owner’s shooting of the youth was not negligent.
C. The estate of the youth, because the youth was an invitee.
D. The estate of the youth, because the youth was not a co-conspirator with the robber.
B. The store owner, because the owner’s shooting of the youth was not negligent.
Answer choice B is correct. When a person using force in self-defense unintentionally harms an innocent third party, the person is not liable for injuries to the third party that occur while the person is acting in self-defense, so long as those injuries were accidental, rather than deliberate, and the person was not negligent with respect to the third party. Because this was the case here, answer choice B is correct, and answer choice A is incorrect.
Answer choice C is incorrect because, even though the youth was an invitee, the owner’s duty towards the youth was to act with reasonable care. As the owner’s shooting of the youth was accidental and not negligent in light of the circumstances, the owner did not breach his duty towards the youth.
Answer choice D is incorrect because the mere fact that the youth was not a co-conspirator with the robber is not enough to impose liability on the store owner; rather, the estate of the youth would have to prove that the store owner was negligent with respect to the youth while acting in self-defense or that the store owner intentionally shot the youth.
DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURY - Self Defense
