Civil Liability Immunity

[coolwrld]

Hi All,

I'm hoping someone might be able to answer this question or at least provide thoughts/insights.  The Delaware code regarding civil liability immunity appears to only cover if the use of force was for protection of property and you are not convicted.  Or, at least that is the only place I see the reference

§ 466. Justification — Use of force for the protection of property.
(d) Where a person has used force for the protection of property and has not been convicted for any crime or offense connected with that use of force, such person shall not be liable for damages or be otherwise civilly liable to the one against whom such force was used.

Does anyone know if there is Delaware case law or any specific guidance as to whether or not the immunity would also be true if the use of force was for the protection of one's self or someone else again assume you are not convicted of a criminal charge?

[SturmRugerSR9]

You are responsible for all bullets you fire and where they end up under any circumstance.

[Cbmarine]

You are responsible for all bullets you fire and where they end up under any circumstance.

OP is asking the question in a different context: if you are found to criminally not-guilty in a self-defense of persons, could you be sued civilly with a much lower threshold of proof? In a ridiculous example, the perp really needed the money in your wallet because he was hungry and wanted to take your wife to dinner with him. His mom says that he was really a nice kid and that you shot him because you are a cold-blooded trigger-happy miser.

[MarcWinkman]

A person could certainly try, but Rule 12 of the Superior Court gives plenty of avenues to get the complaint kicked before the merits of the claim are even considered.  There really isn't an "immunity" from liability, however, as the Superior Court doesn't have a Clean Hands doctrine like the Court of Chancery.

[topper]

Does anyone know of any court room examples?

[MarcWinkman]

If I get a couple minutes free at work tomorrow, I can run a westlaw search restricted Ron a Delaware.

[MarcWinkman]

Well a quick search on Westlaw did not prove to turn up any similar provision as pertains to §§ 464, 465 addressing the use of force for protection of self or others respectively.  There are about 184 cases that address different aspects of use of force for self defense under §464 and only about 4 cases addressing aspects of § 465 for defense of others.   

[coolwrld]

Well a quick search on Westlaw did not prove to turn up any similar provision as pertains to §§ 464, 465 addressing the use of force for protection of self or others respectively.  There are about 184 cases that address different aspects of use of force for self defense under §464 and only about 4 cases addressing aspects of § 465 for defense of others.   

I assume you mean that those 184 and 4 cases speak specifically to whether or not the use of force was justified etc.. and not whether a not guilty verdict or lack of prosecution provided immunity against civil prosecution.

[MarcWinkman]

Well a quick search on Westlaw did not prove to turn up any similar provision as pertains to §§ 464, 465 addressing the use of force for protection of self or others respectively.  There are about 184 cases that address different aspects of use of force for self defense under §464 and only about 4 cases addressing aspects of § 465 for defense of others.   

I assume you mean that those 184 and 4 cases speak specifically to whether or not the use of force was justified etc.. and not whether a not guilty verdict or lack of prosecution provided immunity against civil prosecution.

That's correct.  Based upon the lack of cases addressing civil liability or immunity therefrom, in the cases that came up in a Westlaw notes on decisions search of the applicable statutes, I would say that there is no hard law that says that there is immunity from civil liability.  Having said that, I would imagine that were someone to attempt to recover civil damages after having been injured in a deadly force defense situation that they caused, there'd be wiggle room to seek summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Civil Rules and incorporate into that the equitable doctrine of unclean hands; i.e. one may not benefit from his/her own malfeasance. 

[coolwrld]

That's correct.  Based upon the lack of cases addressing civil liability or immunity therefrom, in the cases that came up in a Westlaw notes on decisions search of the applicable statutes, I would say that there is no hard law that says that there is immunity from civil liability.  Having said that, I would imagine that were someone to attempt to recover civil damages after having been injured in a deadly force defense situation that they caused, there'd be wiggle room to seek summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Civil Rules and incorporate into that the equitable doctrine of unclean hands; i.e. one may not benefit from his/her own malfeasance. 

Thanks Marc for the research and observations hopefully I will never have a need to worry about it.  I do find it interesting that they specifically call it out for 466 but not the other two.

My main reason for asking the question is because I'm looking at CCWSafe and USCCA self defense coverage/packages.  Aside from the differences in lawyer selection (USCCA) versus lawyer assignment (CCWSafe), USCCA also provides coverage for civil liability damages.  I guess with potentially having immunity from civil liability in DE having coverage for that may be a touch much.

[MarcWinkman]

Looking at the statute again (§466), I think what the General Assembly was trying to accomplish with the law was to basically detach the automatic premise liability that applies to business properties.  Think of it this way, if a person were being ejected from Delaware park for being disorderly and because they were flailing about, a greater degree of force was needed to escort them from the premises, but unbeknownst to the staff escorting the person out, they had a health disorder that made them more prone to physical injury, the defense of property section is there to absolve liability.  Though there is a reasonable use of force to eject the person, the person could still sue for damages sustained as a result of the health condition.  This is the so called "egg shell plaintiff" scenario.  What §466 does is say that there is no claim upon which relief can be granted because the injury was the result of the lawful use of force in protection property interests.

I don't know that to for sure be the legislative intent, but from a legal and logical standpoint, that's the conclusion that I come to.

[Clarence]

Very interesting conversation. 

In reality have there been unreasonable prosecutions in self defense situations in Delaware?

The few cases that I have seen did not result in prosecutions but of course there may have been some that were missed.

My first impression is that Delaware has been pretty reasonable. 

Maybe I am being naive. 

[MarcWinkman]

There have been a number of prosecutions in Delaware relating to self defense use of force of varying degrees from fisticuffs right on up to deadly force self defense.  The cases that are pursued by the DOJ, however, have all tended to be situations where the defendant overestimated the amount of force needed to subdue the threat.