CIVIL LAW SUITS AND THE CHL HOLDER......

[Capt Roy]

This case is in California

I think that says it all for this example....

[lrpettit]

You can have a justifiable shoot in defense of PROPERTY, but the protection lies in the defense of PERSON.

There is no civil protection for defense of property.

[JALLEN]

You can have a justifiable shoot in defense of PROPERTY, but the protection lies in the defense of PERSON.

There is no civil protection for defense of property.

How so?

What does Chapter 9 say? I believe, and understood in my recent CHL class, that one is justified in using deadly force reasonably necessary to prevent serious injury to persons or property.

The statute quoted above says if the use of deadly force was justified, you are off the hook, civilly immune. Of course, that issue can be tried, as it has not been tried before, just the DA/Grand Jury determination.

They can't get your homeowners policy if you were not negligent, or were justified in using deadly force. The policy protects you from liability, and if you are immune, no liability. The insurer, which is on the hook for a defense, might tender the cost of defense just to make it go away. That alone can be a pretty decent pot of money these days.

[lrpettit]

You can have a justifiable shoot in defense of PROPERTY, but the protection lies in the defense of PERSON.

There is no civil protection for defense of property.

How so?

What does Chapter 9 say? I believe, and understood in my recent CHL class, that one is justified in using deadly force reasonably necessary to prevent serious injury to persons or property.

The statute quoted above says if the use of deadly force was justified, you are off the hook, civilly immune. Of course, that issue can be tried, as it has not been tried before, just the DA/Grand Jury determination.

They can't get your homeowners policy if you were not negligent, or were justified in using deadly force. The policy protects you from liability, and if you are immune, no liability. The insurer, which is on the hook for a defense, might tender the cost of defense just to make it go away. That alone can be a pretty decent pot of money these days.

Not a lawyer but:
The immunity in 83.001 only applies to Defense of Person:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

[JALLEN]

That's really subtle.

The wording of the provision states the rule but the meaning is narrowed by the title of the chapter!

[Tic Tac]

That's not how I understand code construction but maybe a Texas lawyer can clear it up for me.

[Tic Tac]

If you fire your gun at a stranger, who broke into your house at night and is armed and discharged their gun first, you would have a good case in a civil trial, but you still could be sued just to get your homeowner's policy to pay, especially if the stranger has a permanent injury as a result of your bullet, or is a minor.

My homeowners policy won't pay a wooden nickel for an intentional act by me. In addition, I'm pretty much judgement proof because of my financial situation. So good luck with that plan.

[TexasCajun]

You can have a justifiable shoot in defense of PROPERTY, but the protection lies in the defense of PERSON.

There is no civil protection for defense of property.

How so?

What does Chapter 9 say? I believe, and understood in my recent CHL class, that one is justified in using deadly force reasonably necessary to prevent serious injury to persons or property.

The statute quoted above says if the use of deadly force was justified, you are off the hook, civilly immune. Of course, that issue can be tried, as it has not been tried before, just the DA/Grand Jury determination.

They can't get your homeowners policy if you were not negligent, or were justified in using deadly force. The policy protects you from liability, and if you are immune, no liability. The insurer, which is on the hook for a defense, might tender the cost of defense just to make it go away. That alone can be a pretty decent pot of money these days.

That's why the law was enacted. In cases of justified shoots, the criminal and/or their family would sue because there was a reasonable chance that the insurance company would settle because the cost of fighting the case would cost more than the settlement. This law cuts that chance way down.

[TexasCajun]

You can have a justifiable shoot in defense of PROPERTY, but the protection lies in the defense of PERSON.

There is no civil protection for defense of property.

How so?

What does Chapter 9 say? I believe, and understood in my recent CHL class, that one is justified in using deadly force reasonably necessary to prevent serious injury to persons or property.

The statute quoted above says if the use of deadly force was justified, you are off the hook, civilly immune. Of course, that issue can be tried, as it has not been tried before, just the DA/Grand Jury determination.

They can't get your homeowners policy if you were not negligent, or were justified in using deadly force. The policy protects you from liability, and if you are immune, no liability. The insurer, which is on the hook for a defense, might tender the cost of defense just to make it go away. That alone can be a pretty decent pot of money these days.

Not a lawyer but:
The immunity in 83.001 only applies to Defense of Person:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Chapter 9 of the penal code outlines the justification of the use of force & deadly force in defense of both people and property. The heading is either incorrect or incomplete. But as the letter of the law is stated, the heading is irrelevant.

[lrpettit]

You can have a justifiable shoot in defense of PROPERTY, but the protection lies in the defense of PERSON.

There is no civil protection for defense of property.

How so?

What does Chapter 9 say? I believe, and understood in my recent CHL class, that one is justified in using deadly force reasonably necessary to prevent serious injury to persons or property.

The statute quoted above says if the use of deadly force was justified, you are off the hook, civilly immune. Of course, that issue can be tried, as it has not been tried before, just the DA/Grand Jury determination.

They can't get your homeowners policy if you were not negligent, or were justified in using deadly force. The policy protects you from liability, and if you are immune, no liability. The insurer, which is on the hook for a defense, might tender the cost of defense just to make it go away. That alone can be a pretty decent pot of money these days.

Not a lawyer but:
The immunity in 83.001 only applies to Defense of Person:
PC §9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Chapter 9 of the penal code outlines the justification of the use of force & deadly force in defense of both people and property. The heading is either incorrect or incomplete. But as the letter of the law is stated, the heading is irrelevant.

Although I wish you were correct, I would not assume that Chapter 83 provides you any immunity from civil actions for defense of property unless you get a legal opinion confirming that stance. Unfortunately, I've read too many opinions that don't believe it does. I also don't understand why you would automatically think that Chapter 83 covers all situations covered in Chapter 9? Chapter 9 talks about Criminal action and Chapter 83 talks about civil.

[dac1842]

I have a very close friend that has been through this. Yes you can be sued. The law says you have civil immunity which means a jury should not levy any damages against you.
The plaintiff attorney said he would never pursue that again...

[texanjoker]

That's not how I understand code construction but maybe a Texas lawyer can clear it up for me.

That would.depend on the Attorney. One side will say yes and the other no.

[JALLEN]

What have the Texas courts had to say on this question? That is the real only answer.

It looks to me like the section(s) in Chapter 83, "CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON" ought to apply only in situations where deadly force is used in defense of persons, not property. Is there a Chapter that deals with property? Are there other sections than the one cited in Chapter 83 to negative this interpretation?

It ought to have been easy to say so directly that the section applied only in case of defense of persons, but maybe the drafter thought it would be sly, or stylish, to do it that way.

[Dadtodabone]

After a LexisNexis search I was unable to turn up any Texas civil suits were the defendant was a no billed or acquitted self defense shooter. There were several in CA, one in NY and one in PA. I did turn up a thread on this forum from 2010 were Mr. Cotton made a lengthy statement as to his views on civil liability: http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=40326" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; sixth or seventh post.

[race4beer]

When I took my CHL class, the instructor was very specific that we should expect a Civil Lawsuit if Force/Deadly Force ever has to be used. Can you fight it - absolutely, do 99% of them settle out of court for far less than it would cost to fully defend such a lawsuit - yup. I am paraphrasing, but the message was that on average, it's a $50k bill (settlement). Now, that does not apply to Home/Car where the Castle Doctrine, I believe, protects us from Civil Lawsuits.

So basically, could you fight it and win - sure thing, for $150k-$200K, or you can cough up $50k-$100k and make it go away.