Haeussler v. De Loretto
109 Cal. App. 2d 363 · California Court of Appeal · 1952
Facts
On May 21, 1950, around 10:30 p.m., plaintiff Haeussler went to his neighbor, defendant De Loretto's home, to inquire about his missing dog. When De Loretto opened the door, the dog ran out from inside the house. Haeussler immediately began speaking loudly, waving his hands, and arguing with De Loretto about the dog. De Loretto, feeling threatened by Haeussler's agitated state and past reputation for violence, asked him to leave three times. When Haeussler continued to advance threateningly, De Loretto struck or pushed him once, loosening two of Haeussler's teeth. Haeussler called the police, but no arrest was made nor was any criminal action had.
Procedural history
The plaintiff appealed from a judgment for the defendant in an action for damages for assault and battery. The cause was initially tried by the court without a jury, which rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant.
Issue
Did the defendant commit assault and battery, or was the force used justifiable as reasonable self-defense and removal of a trespasser? Was the amount of force used by the defendant reasonable under the circumstances?
Holding
The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant, finding that the defendant used reasonable force in self-defense and to remove the plaintiff from his premises. The force used was therefore not wilful or unlawful.
Rule
An individual involved in an altercation has the right to use such force as is necessary to protect themselves from bodily injury. The determination of whether a defendant acted in self-defense and whether the force used was reasonably necessary under the circumstances are questions for the trier of fact. If the trier of fact finds that reasonable force was used in self-defense, then the force is not considered wilful or unlawful.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.