Hatfield v. Gracen
| Decision Date | 09 August 1977 |
| Citation | 279 Or. 303,567 P.2d 546 |
| Parties | Dannie Lee HATFIELD, Appellant, v. James Michael GRACEN and Belinda Susan Gracen, husband and wife, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
[279 Or. 304-A] Keith Rodman, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Frank E. Bocci, Eugene, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Before DENECKE, C. J., and HOLMAN, HOWELL and CAMPBELL, JJ.
This is an action for damages in which plaintiff seeks recovery for personal injuries and property damages as well as punitive damages. Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the defendant James Gracen recklessly discharged a firearm which injured plaintiff and damaged his vehicle. 1 In a separate count, plaintiff also alleged that the defendant was negligent "in discharging his firearm in close proximity to and in the direction of the person of plaintiff." The jury returned a general verdict for defendants, and plaintiff appealed from the judgment entered thereon. We affirm.
Because of the jury verdict for the defendant, the facts are to be considered in the light most favorable to him. The defendant is the owner of a small, late-night grocery store known as the Community Market located near Eugene. At approximately midnight on the evening of September 25 or the morning of September 26, 1974, plaintiff and two companions, Parrott and Holliday, arrived at the store and parked their automobile in the store's parking lot. Plaintiff, who was driving, remained in the car while Parrott went into the store to make a purchase. As Parrott entered the store, another man passed him going out. After looking around inside, Parrott discovered the clerk, McCoy, lying down behind the counter. The clerk jumped up and announced that he had just been robbed. Parrott turned around and looked out the door in time to see that the man he had passed on the way in was getting into a truck or van in the parking lot. Parrott then ran out of the store and returned to plaintiff's vehicle. As he jumped into the car, he was shouting to plaintiff to follow the truck which was leaving the parking lot. Apparently, there was a substantial amount of shouting and confusion as Parrott attempted to explain what had occurred and to convince plaintiff to follow the truck.
At approximately the same time that Parrott was leaving the store and running back to the car, McCoy sounded a buzzer which alerted the defendant, who was working in a back room, that there was trouble at the front of the store. Defendant grabbed a holster containing a .38 pistol and hurried to the front room. McCoy met him on the way, informed him of the robbery, and gave him a brief description of the suspect. Defendant ran outside and saw Parrott getting into his car. Due to the poor lighting in the parking lot and the cursory nature of McCoy's description, the defendant assumed that Parrott was the robber. Defendant testified that he shouted twice in an effort to stop what he believed to be the getaway car. Although plaintiff and Parrott both testified that they heard no warning shouts, the jury could have found that this was due to Parrott's own shouting and the resultant confusion.
As plaintiff's car began to pull away, defendant drew his pistol from its holster and fired. The gun was loaded with .357 birdshot, and defendant was standing 40 to 50 feet away at the time. The charge shattered the window on plaintiff's door, and three of the pellets struck plaintiff in the head and lodged just above his left eye.
At trial, the defendant testified that as he drew his pistol he cocked it and immediately fired in the general direction of plaintiff's automobile, intending to hit the ground in between.
Defendant also testified that he did not actually aim the gun or look down the sights. Therefore, it is not clear whether the pellets from defendant's gun struck plaintiff and his car directly or whether they ricocheted off the pavement. 2
On appeal, plaintiff makes seven assignments of error. We will treat the more substantial ones first.
[1-3] The underlying inquiry in this case, of course, must focus upon whether the defendant acted with due care in drawing his pistol and firing in the general direction of plaintiff's automobile, which he believed to be the getaway car. Under common law, one is privileged to use reasonable physical force in defending or recapturing property or in making an arrest. See Restatement of the Law of Torts (Second) §§ 77, 81, 87, 100, 118 (1965). 3 Moreover, so long as the degree of force employed is reasonable under the facts of the case, the defendant will not be liable for injuries to any innocent person whom he reasonably believes to be the guilty party, so long as his conduct is in accord with the degree of care which would be exercised by a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. See Restatement, supra at §§ 75, 111, 137.
[4,5] Plaintiff contends that the court erred in instructing the jury that defendant was privileged to "use physical force upon another person in defending himself, or a third person, in defending property, and in making an arrest or in preventing an escape." The instruction is taken from ORS 161.205(5). However, this statute deals only with criminal liability, and it is not directly applicable to cases involving civil tort liability. As a general rule, the existence of a statutory defense to a criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean that civil liability can be avoided as well, but no exception to this instruction was taken on these grounds. Instead, plaintiff argues that there was no evidence that the defendant was defending property, making an arrest or preventing an escape. Plaintiff also contends that no crime was committed in defendant's presence so as to authorize an arrest under ORS 133.225. 4
The defendant testified that his reason or purpose in firing his gun was "to cause the fleeing vehicle to stop." There is no further direct evidence of defendant's motive for using physical force, but we believe that it is reasonable to infer from this testimony and from the events surrounding the shooting that defendant was attempting either to defend and recapture his property or to make an arrest. 5
[7,8] We also disagree with plaintiff's contention that the crime was not committed in defendant's presence so as to justify an arrest under ORS 133.255. Defendant was alerted to the robbery by a burglar alarm which was triggered by the clerk, McCoy. As defendant rushed to the front room he was met by McCoy and given a description of the thief who, at that time, was apparently still making his exit from the parking lot. In our view, these circumstances are sufficient to warrant a finding that the crime was committed in defendant's presence. See Restatement, supra at § 119, comment m. 6
[9,10] We do agree, however, that there was no evidence which would indicate that the defendant could have been attempting to prevent an "escape" as that term is used in ORS 161.205(5), which was the statutory basis for this instruction. As subsequent provisions make clear, the privilege to prevent an escape refers only to an escape from lawful custody. See ORS 161.235 to 161.265. See also Restatement, supra, §§ 134, 135. The facts in this case could not give rise to a privilege to prevent such an escape, for there was no evidence that anyone was ever placed in custody prior to the shooting. Correspondingly, the instruction which was given was erroneous, at least in part, for the reason assigned by plaintiff in his exception.
However, as we have already noted, there was evidence sufficient to give rise to at least an inference that the defendant was attempting to defend and recapture his property or make an arrest. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that the error in this instruction could have been prejudicial. On the basis of the evidence in this case, it is extremely unlikely that the jury would have concluded that defendant was trying to prevent an escape unless they also concluded that he was attempting to defend and recapture his property or make an arrest of those he believed to be the thieves.
Plaintiff also contends that the court erred in failing to give his requested instruction relating to the degree of care which must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peña v. Greffet
...Brady v. Dill, 187 F.3d 104, 123 (1st Cir.1999) ; McConney v. City of Houston, 863 F.2d 1180, 1185 (5th Cir.1989) ; Hatfield v. Gracen, 279 Or. 303, 567 P.2d 546, 550 (1977) ). The Restatement circumscribes the amount of force that someone in Vallejos' position can use against someone like ......
-
Mitchell v. Mt. Hood Meadows Oreg.
...use would be harmless as a matter of law if it was relevant only to defendants' affirmative defense. See, e.g., Hatfield v. Gracen, 279 Or. 303, 311, 567 P.2d 546 (1977) (failure to give instruction on the plaintiff's contributory negligence harmless when jury found the defendant not neglig......
-
Peñ v. Greffet
...Brady v. Dill, 187 F.3d 104, 123 (1st Cir. 1999); McConney v. City of Houston, 863 F.2d 1180, 1185 (5th Cir. 1989); Hatfield v. Gracen, 567 P.2d 546, 550 (Or. 1977)). The Restatement circumscribes the amount of force that someone in Vallejos' position can use against someone like Peña in a ......
-
Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc.
...(owner of dangerous instrumentality such as gun must exercise high degree of care when using gun or authorizing use); Hatfield v. Gracen (1977), 279 Or. 303, 567 P.2d 546 (standard of due care in firing gun at suspected robber); Everette v. City of New Kensington (1978), 262 Pa.Super. 28, 3......
-
Give Me Back My Bicycle: the Use of Force to Recapture Chattel According to American Law and Jewish Law
...36. W. Page Keeton et al, supra note 13, § 22, at 138. 37. Restatement (Second) of Torts: Purpose of Actor § 105. 38. Hatfield v. Gracen, 567 P.2d 546, 550 (Or. 39. W. Page Keeton et al, supra note 13, § 22, at 138. 40. W. Page Keeton et al, supra note 13, § 22, at 138; see also Restatement......