Woodard v. Turnipseed case summary
784 So. 2d 239 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: In plaintiff's action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when defendant engaged in an assault and battery against him, plaintiff appealed the judgment of the court (Mississippi) that was entered in favor of defendant pursuant to the jury's verdict, alleging error in denial of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
FACTS:
-Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries allegedly sustained when defendant engaged in an assault and battery against plaintiff, striking him with a broom.
-P was employed by D and told to leave when he was not cleaning cows prior to attaching the milker.
-P was fired before, and when he was fired D claims that P told him "I will get you for this."
-Remembering the prior threat, D thought that P would vandalize the time clock, so escorted him there.
-P started with verbal assault while being escorted by D, D told P to leave and not come back, P said he was not going anywhere, D picked up a broom and hit him three times, cracking the handle.
-P suffered a injuries as a result.
-The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant and the trial court subsequently denied plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The court reversed and rendered on the issue of defendant's liability and reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only.
HOLDING
Defendant had never viewed plaintiff as a threat to his person or property. Accordingly, plaintiff's failure to depart from defendant's property did not justify defendant's actions in attacking plaintiff.
RULES-One can only use force in self defense that is reasonably necessary to complete the task.
-Here there was no peril.
CONCLUSION: The trial court's judgment was reversed and rendered on the issue of defendant's liability and reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only. Since defendant had never viewed plaintiff as a threat to his person or property, defendant was liable for personal injuries caused by his assault of plaintiff.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
784 So. 2d 239 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: In plaintiff's action for personal injuries allegedly sustained when defendant engaged in an assault and battery against him, plaintiff appealed the judgment of the court (Mississippi) that was entered in favor of defendant pursuant to the jury's verdict, alleging error in denial of motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
FACTS:
-Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries allegedly sustained when defendant engaged in an assault and battery against plaintiff, striking him with a broom.
-P was employed by D and told to leave when he was not cleaning cows prior to attaching the milker.
-P was fired before, and when he was fired D claims that P told him "I will get you for this."
-Remembering the prior threat, D thought that P would vandalize the time clock, so escorted him there.
-P started with verbal assault while being escorted by D, D told P to leave and not come back, P said he was not going anywhere, D picked up a broom and hit him three times, cracking the handle.
-P suffered a injuries as a result.
-The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant and the trial court subsequently denied plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The court reversed and rendered on the issue of defendant's liability and reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only.
HOLDING
Defendant had never viewed plaintiff as a threat to his person or property. Accordingly, plaintiff's failure to depart from defendant's property did not justify defendant's actions in attacking plaintiff.
RULES-One can only use force in self defense that is reasonably necessary to complete the task.
-Here there was no peril.
CONCLUSION: The trial court's judgment was reversed and rendered on the issue of defendant's liability and reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages only. Since defendant had never viewed plaintiff as a threat to his person or property, defendant was liable for personal injuries caused by his assault of plaintiff.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment