Applying the laws can be a complicated, highly detail oriented, affair. The details are where the devil often is.RJGold wrote:Some of the lawyers on the forum may want to weigh in as I am not one. The [Pre-paid legal service] folks told me you are never immune from being sued in civil court. There may be protection once you're there, but it will be up to you to defend yourself and prove it applies.RottenApple wrote:
If the shooting was justified, aren't you immune from civil liability in Texas? I thought I'd read that some where.
Lawsuits are filed when there is a dispute about the facts, what law(s) apply, and to what extent. I say you owe me a certain sum of money. The paperwork is in order but you say you don't. One of us will ultimately be judged right. You have your reason why you say the money is not owed, I have mine, very good ones in my view, why it is owed. That case will be filed, and either resolved, settled somehow, or eventually go to trial. The economics of the fight weigh in, significantly. In some cases a defendant will find it cheaper to pay a certain amount that take the case to trial and risk a worse result, and forego the possibility of a better one. Sometimes a plaintiff will forego filing due to uncertainty about being able to win, and doesn't want to make the investment.
Many times, the outcome depends on very tiny nuances of that can be proven as fact. I have seen a great many instances of where someone has an ostensibly viable claim, but the evidence is unsatisfactory, missing, doubtful, etc. A witness may be unavailable by the time of trial, or successfully impeached rendering his testimony worthless or dubious. Remember Mark Fuhrman? For the younger ones, Fuhrman was an LA County detective who ended up being the only person convicted of a crime arising out of his testimony in the OJ Simpson debacle.
Many times, a plaintiff doesn't, can't, know at the time of filing what all the details are of his claim. I used to handle mechanics' lien claims here many years ago. We knew the claimant was owed some amount but for one reason or another the amount wasn't adequately ascertainable, until a great deal of effort went in to "counting nails" as we used to call it. Priority of those claims often depended in extraneous factors. Evidence had to be rounded up, analyzed, verified, organized. Disputes over "extras" or "chargebacks" had to be resolved.
Saying there is an immunity from civil liability will discourage many plaintiffs from filing, and lawyers from advising suit, but it really only precludes a judgment after the proper facts are ascertained. An aggressive, or sympathetic, plaintiff may persist even with a weak claim, giving you the choice of paying for defense, or paying tribute. I myself usually favored paying for defense, because I had confidence in my ability to assess the probable outcomes accurately, but that is not without risks. "Who Dares Wins!"