Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
34. Is the neighbor likely to prevail?
In a battery action brought by the neighbor against the rancher, the rancher testified that he actually thought his neighbor was armed, although he could point to nothing that would have reasonably justified this belief.
The neighbor got out of his truck and walked toward the fence. The rancher got out but simply stood by his truck. When the neighbor came over the fence, the rancher shot him, inflicting serious injury.
A rancher and his neighbor were involved in a boundary dispute. In order to resolve their differences, each drove his truck to an open pasture area on his land where the two properties were separated by a fence. The rancher was accompanied by four friends, and the neighbor was alone.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he is being, or is about to be, attacked, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary for protection against the potential injury. Invoking self-defense requires first, a determination that the privilege exists, and second, whether the defendant was privileged to use the degree of force that he did, in fact, use. A defendant has the burden to prove that he reasonably believed there was a real threat of harmful or offensive bodily contact or threatened confinement or imprisonment. The defendant may only use the degree of force necessary to prevent that harm. The defendant will be liable for any force used that was beyond what was necessary.
A defendant may not use deadly force (i.e., force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury) unless he himself is in danger of death or serious bodily harm. This means that to justify the use of force sufficient to cause death or serious bodily injury, a defendant must have more than a subjective suspicion that such force is necessary. A defendant must have an actual and reasonable belief that he himself is threatened with a force of that sort.
A substantial majority of courts hold that one does not need to attempt escape or «retreat,» and may stand his ground, and even use deadly force when necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury. A growing modern trend, however, would impose a duty to retreat if safely possible UNLESS the actor is in his own home.
D is correct. The neighbor will prevail because the rancher's belief that the neighbor was armed was unreasonable, which precludes him from claiming self-defense. While the rancher's belief that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from harm may have been actual, it was not reasonable. To justify the use of force sufficient to cause death or serious bodily injury, a defendant must have more than a subjective suspicion that such force is necessary. A defendant must have an actual and reasonable belief that he himself is threatened with a force of that sort. In this case, the rancher's belief that the neighbor was armed was not reasonable, nor did he have a reasonable belief that the neighbor meant to harm him.
A is incorrect. The majority rule is that a defendant is not required to retreat, and may stand his own ground, regardless of whether he is in his own home. A growing modern trend, however, is to allow the defendant to stand his ground and defend himself only when he is on his own property. Also, even if the rancher had no obligation to retreat, he used deadly force, which was not justifiable unless he had a reasonable belief that he himself was threatened with that degree of force and needed to use deadly force to defend himself. As explained above, his subjective belief that he was in danger of substantial bodily injury or death was unreasonable, and the neighbor will therefore prevail.
B is incorrect. The rancher's subjective belief that the neighbor was armed is insufficient to sustain a self-defense claim. As explained above, the belief that one is in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death must be reasonable, and here, there was no reason to believe that the neighbor was armed or had any intent to shoot the rancher.
C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The neighbor will prevail, but not because deadly force is never permitted during a property dispute. Although it is true that force sufficient to cause serious bodily injury cannot be used to protect property interests, a property dispute can escalate to a situation in which the participants are in danger of bodily harm. In this case, the rancher would argue that he feared that the neighbor was going to shoot him. If his fear was reasonable, he would have been justified in using deadly force to defend himself, even if the dispute began as a fight over property. However, because the rancher's fear was not reasonable, he was not justified in using deadly force.