TexasCHLforum.com

At the CHL class Saturday, our instructor told us that in Texas, you are NOT protected against civil action if you shoot somebody in self defense. However, later I was Googling around and found this in the Texas Penal Code:
----------------------------
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].

This went into effect in 2007.
----------------------------

So was the instructor wrong? In any case, the way it's written above, it looks like you have civil immunity ONLY if the perpetrator was committing an unlawful entry offense, i.e. not something in a parking lot or sidewalk. I may be misunderstanding it, however. Can anybody clarify?

Try this, from the Texas Legislature's website.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /CP.83.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is no immunity from being sued. If you are, then the civil immunity should cause the case to be dismissed quickly if you were justified. Perhaps this is what your instructor meant.

Brian

Your instructor was wrong. If your are found to be justified in the shooting, then you have Civil Immunity. As stated, you can still be sued, but you would win the case. And, it would be hard for the others to find someone other than an idiot for a lawyer that would take on the case with the statute in place.

I heard the same thing at my CHL class. Glad this is the case here in Texas. It is the same in Indiana, where I lived for the last 15 years until my return this year.

Keith B wrote:it would be hard for the others to find someone other than an idiot for a lawyer that would take on the case with the statute in place.

Those are not as hard to find as you might think. I have encountered a couple recently....

Keith B wrote:Your instructor was wrong. If your are found to be justified in the shooting, then you have Civil Immunity. As stated, you can still be sued, but you would win the case. And, it would be hard for the others to find someone other than an idiot for a lawyer that would take on the case with the statute in place.

Right. I would imagine your attorney would respond to the original filing of the civil suit with a motion for summary judgment, citing the appropriate section of the law. One would THINK a judge would rule in favor of your motion for summary judgment, and everybody could go on with their lives.

Can you get them to pay your legal fees and expenses (lost work, etc.) if you get summary judgement? That would be justice.

bayouhazard wrote:Can you get them to pay your legal fees and expenses (lost work, etc.) if you get summary judgement? That would be justice.

Well... the Texas legislature *did* pass a 'loser pays' bill this past session! I do not know if there are limits on what sort of civil suits that it applies towards.

bayouhazard wrote:Can you get them to pay your legal fees and expenses (lost work, etc.) if you get summary judgement? That would be justice.

...GREAT idea...oughta slow 'em down a little...and WOULD be just...

The so-called "loser pays" bill may apply to the type of suits being discussed. It will apply only to suits that involve less than $100,000 in controversy and only to suits that are dismissed on a newly-authorized "motion to dismiss." This new-to-Texas motion is not the same thing as a motion for summary judgment, so the reimbursement provisions of "loser pays" won't apply to a victory by way of a summary judgment. However, the court will have authority under Tex. Rule of Civil Procedure 215 to issue sanctions for a frivolous pleading.

Chas.

There are some pretty big buck$ involved here (guess who pay$ and who get$) regardless of the ultimate ruling. I don't want to be the one who shoots first, me. (that's LSU cajun talk)

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The so-called "loser pays" bill may apply to the type of suits being discussed. It will apply only to suits that involve less than $100,000 in controversy and only to suits that are dismissed on a newly-authorized "motion to dismiss." This new-to-Texas motion is not the same thing as a motion for summary judgment, so the reimbursement provisions of "loser pays" won't apply to a victory by way of a summary judgment. However, the court will have authority under Tex. Rule of Civil Procedure 215 to issue sanctions for a frivolous pleading.

Chas.

...would that then reflect against the attorney who filed the case, or cost him/his firm money?

and then there is this

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.

bkj wrote:and then there is this

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.

...BUT because of this: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /CP.83.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; there is no remedy available in a civil suit, if it's found that it was a good shoot...