Civil Liability

[Cochise]

Hello.. I am new here and this is my first post. I have a question and have been unable to find a clear answer:

A person is legally carrying a concealed handgun (in Ohio) and is forced to use it to defend their self and it is determined that the shooting was justified and no criminal charges are filed.

Can the person who used the gun to defend their self be sued in a civil action by the person who was shot (if injured) or the persons family if the person died ?

[A_F]

technically, you can sue anyone you want for anything you want.

The more ridiculous it is, the easier it is to get thrown out.

technology companies do it all the time to get the competition to run out of money. Sure each case gets dismissed but each case costs money regardless.

So yes, they can sue you.

[Brian D.]

Welcome! (Come on, A__F, you forget the good manners we're supposed to treat newbies with? )

[catfish86]

There was a saying a professor in my paralegal school civil torts class whenever a situation was described..."Can you sue" the answer is always yes. All you need is about $125 and some paper.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Yes, you can be sued.

What your next question might/should be is, can they win?

The answer is: It doesn't matter.

Even if they do not win, the costs (in money, time AND stress) of defending yourself can be devastating.

If you are concerned about such a thing, you may want to research, and invest in, a self-defense insurance plan.

[rickt]

This doesn't stop a criminal from suing but doesn't it stop the criminal from actually collecting anything?

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2307.60v1

(2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply:

(a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action.

(b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.

(c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

(3) Recovery against a victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if conduct the person engaged in against that victim was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action and that conduct, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.

[BobK]

Yes, the correct question is not "can I be sued", but do I have a probable risk of losing the suit.

There are two nice parts to having the above law. First, a plaintiff attorney is not going to waste his/her time taking a case for 30-40% of the damages if damages are barred by statute. Believe me, I have to deal with those jackals frequently from the other side of the table as part of my job and am well familiar with those scumbags and how they operate.

Second, even if you had some criminal willing to pay $300-$500 per hour instead of contingency (as if that would ever happen!) to file suit, it is way easier and cheaper to have the suit tossed out with a Motion For Summary Judgment when damages are barred as a matter of law.

[deanimator]

First, a plaintiff attorney is not going to waste his/her time taking a case for 30-40% of the damages if damages are barred by statute.

Thirty percent of NOTHING doesn't go very far. It won't even pay for plaintiff's attorney's parking...

[MyWifeSaidYes]

But who's going to pay the defense attorney to move for summary judgement?

The victim.

Who's got to find an attorney that (hopefully) knows what to do, and when to do it, come up with a retainer for that attorney AND get that attorney to actually start working the case, all in the allotted time?

The victim.

Who's on the hook if the attorney is a screw-up and misses a filing deadline, or takes your money and never actually does anything for you?

The victim.

Just because WE know about R.C. 2307.60 doesn't mean a judge knows about it.

[rickt]

But who's going to pay the defense attorney to move for summary judgement?

If I'm lucky, my umbrella policy. The policy has an exclusion that says it won't cover injuries to a person that were intended, but then the exclusion has an exception that says, "However, this exclusion does not apply to:

Bodily injury resulting from the use of reasonable force by any insured to protect persons or property;"

No guarantee since the insurance company gets to decide if I what I did was "reasonable", but at least there is the possibility they might defend me in the event of a lawsuit. I would hope if the prosecutor/grand jury decided what I did was reasonable under the circumstances, the insurance company will do so also.

[Cochise]

Thanks, I appreciate the replies. Yes, insurance might be an option but you would need to read the fine print carefully. The best outcome is that I can live my life and never have to shoot anything but steel targets.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Thanks, I appreciate the replies. Yes, insurance might be an option but you would need to read the fine print carefully. The best outcome is that I can live my life and never have to shoot anything but steel targets.

I would not depend on any standard insurance plan. Homeowners, general liability, errors & omissions, etc.

Look for an actual self-defense insurance plan, such as those available from USCCA, or Second Call.

There are many lawyers and legal groups that offer self-defense legal plans.

Either option is better than wishful thinking.