- What does a person have to prove to win a slander or libel claim?
- What must a plaintiff prove to recover for an assault or battery?
- If a dog bites a person, is the owner liable for doctor’s bills?
- Does the average member of the public have any privacy rights?
- Can a person recover damages for injuries sustained on someone else’s property?
- Is an owner of property liable for using deadly force to defend their property?
- What remedies does a railroad worker, who is injured while working, have?
- What is a slip and fall action
- Can anyone bring a wrongful death claim?
- Learn More: Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Law
Generally speaking, an owner of property may not use deadly force to defend his or her property. Society values human life and bodily integrity much higher than property. Therefore, the life, health and safety of an individual, even an intruder, is considered to be more valuable than the china or stereo that the individual is trying to steal.
An owner is not prohibited, however, from invoking self-help methods in defending property. An owner of property is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent someone, or something, from entering his or her property or to remove something from the property. What, under normal circumstances, may constitute a battery, assault, or other intentional tort, will not be considered unlawful in situations where it is performed as a reasonable use of self-help in defense of property. However, the use of force calculated to do great bodily harm, or cause death, is not permitted.
One narrow limitation upon the use of deadly force is authorized. Where an intruder threatens personal safety, as well as a threat to property, or where the intruder is committing a forcible felony, deadly force may be appropriate. For example, if a robber enters a home and, while stealing items, attempts to rape the homeowner, the owner may be justified in shooting the robber. However, an owner who witnesses a neighborhood child stealing a bicycle from the owner’s garage, without any threat of bodily harm, is not justified in shooting that child.