Personal Injury Law

Tennessee's Leading Tort Cases - Assault and Battery - Defense - Self-Defense

By John Day

This is one of a series of posts that will excerpt sections from the third edition of my book, Day on Torts: Leading Tennessee Tort Cases.  The book will be available about May 1, 2010.  To order the book go here.

§ 6.6       Defense – Self-Defense

The Case:  Poliak v. Adcock, No. M2000-02325-COA-R3-CV, 2002 WL 31109737 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 2002).

The Basic Facts: Defendant got into a fight with his daughter's live in boyfriend. He raised several defenses, including self-defense. 

The Bottom Line: 

• 'Self-defense is a complete defense to a civil action for battery. Dent v. Holt, No. 01A01-9302-CV-00072, 1994 WL 503891, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 1994) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Thus, persons who can prove that they were acting in self-defense when they assaulted another person will be absolved from liability for the injuries they may have caused.' 2002 WL 31109737 at *3.

• 'The elements of the defense are essentially the same in civil and criminal cases. Shelby Ins. Co. v. Mathes, No. E2000-00186-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1035949, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 27, 2000) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed); [Restatement (Second) of Torts § 63 (1965)]. The defense reflects the principle that persons are entitled to defend themselves when they reasonably believe they are about to be seriously injured. [Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 63, 65 (1965)]; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(a) (1997). However, persons are entitled to use force to defend themselves only as long as the threat of injury continues, Sneed v. Englert, Hamilton Law, 1984 Tenn. App. LEXIS 2657, at *3-4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 1984) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed), and may use only as much force as is necessary to defend themselves. McLemore v. Moore, 2 Tenn. Cas. (Shannon) 142, 143 (1876); McCain v. Vaughn, No. 02A01-9707-CV-00154, 1999 WL 95974, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb, 26, 1999) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed); Dent v. Holt, 1994 WL 503891, at *2.' Id.

• 'The [Restatement] provides fact-finders with factors for determining whether the amount of force used by a person acting in self-defense was reasonable. These factors include: (1) the amount of force the defender exerted, (2) the means or the object by which the defender applied the force, (3) the manner or method used by the defender to apply the force, and (4) the surrounding circumstances under which the defender applied the force. [Restatement (Second) of Torts] § 70 cmt. b. Using similar factors, this court has upheld a trial court's conclusion that a person who threw an aggressor to the ground and repeatedly hit him had used more force than was reasonably necessary. McCain v. Vaughn, 1999 WL 95974, at *2.' Id. at *4.

Full post as published by Day on Torts on May 07, 2010 (boomark / email).