(United States Supreme Court) The test of necessity as a defence to an accusation of assault is one of the actual presence of imminent danger and a reasonably apparent necessity of taking such action as was taken: ‘We hold, therefore, that the record shows that the exception to this instruction was duly taken, and pass to a consideration of the principal question, and that is, whether such instruction contains a correct statement of the law applicable. Its import is, that if the conductor shot when there was in fact no actual danger, although, from the manner, attitude and conduct of the plaintiff, the former had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that an assault upon him with a deadly weapon was intended, and only fired to protect himself from such apprehended assault, the company was liable for compensatory damages. In this view of the law we think the learned court erred. It will be scarcely doubted that if the conductor was prosecuted criminally, it would be sufficient defence that he honestly believed he was in imminent danger, and had reasonable ground for such belief. In other words, the law of self-defence justifies an act done in honest and reasonable belief of immediate danger. The familiar illustration is, that if one approaches another, pointing a pistol and indicating an intention to shoot, the latter is justified by the rule of self-defence in shooting, even to death; and that such justification is not avoided by proof that the party killed was only intending a joke, and that the pistol in his hand was unloaded. Such a defence does not rest on the actual, but on the apparent facts and the honesty of belief in danger. . . And the same rule of immunity extends to civil as to criminal cases. If the injury was done by the defendant in justifiable self-defence, he can neither be punished criminally nor held responsible for damages in a civil action. Because the act was lawful, he is wholly relieved from responsibility for its consequences.’
Judges:
Justice Brewer
Citations:
(1891) 142 US 18
Jurisdiction:
United States
Cited by:
Cited – Ashley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other
Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.244751