Court determines engaging in prize fighting even illegal shouldnt have right to

Court determines engaging in prize fighting even

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 24 pages.

Court determines: engaging in prize fighting (even illegal) shouldn’t have right to damages because he consented to & engaged as matter of business or sport o (1) Principle 1: rights of personality – freedom to dispose of one’s interests of personality as one pleases o (2) Principle 2: no man shall profit by own wrongdoing o Self Defense Complete defense to civil action for battery, when person reasonably believes they are about to be seriously injured, may only use as much force as necessary (e.g. reasonable force) & as long as threat to injury continues Honest but unreasonable won’t let you claim self-defense R2d § 70: comment b Fact Finders reviews: o (1) amount of force (only enough to subdue the threat? (2) means or object of force o (3) manner or method used to apply force o (4) surrounding circumstances Courvoisier v. Raymond Men entered D’s building and he fired shots to scare them. They remained outside his house and man emerges and approaches the house. D shoots him thinking he is going to attack him but guy is a cop. People been throwing stuff at D Must determine if D reasonably believed he was in danger and had a reasonable response to it. o Protection of Property TCA 39-11-614: property, protection – not allowed to use deadly force unless there is some other law that allows you to use deadly force in that situation TCA 39-11-611: self defense – if in protecting property you’re also protecting self then you have right to use deadly force if all 3 are satisfied: Imminent danger of death or bodily injury, danger is real, belief of danger is on reasonable grounds Katko v. Briney 6
Image of page 6
D setup spring gun aimed at bedroom door that would be set off by opening the bedroom door of their unoccupied house. Man trespasses to steal and has leg blown off. Ruling: o (1) There is always a higher value put on human life than potential loss of property o (2) Trespass against property other than a dwelling is not sufficient justification to authorize the use of a deadly weapon by the owner in its defense o (3) Spring guns and other man-killing devices are not justifiable against a mere trespasser unless the landowner is present and would be free to inflict injury of the same time. [Prosser on Torts] o (4) Use to protect property only when your life is in danger as well o (5) Dissent : court failed to recognize that ∆ didn’t intent to cause serious harm since they pointed it at legs of someone entering the room, objects to allowing punitive damages since π engaged in criminal activity by breaking & entering o Private Necessity A person uses or even destroys the property of another to preserve his person or property of greater value Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. - ∆ had boat moored to dock, after unloading couldn’t leave because of storm, caused damages to dock by being there Outcome o (1) Distinction made that ship owner re-secured ship w/ more lines after they broke o
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 24 pages?

  • Fall '11
  • Frazier
  • Law

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture