RESEARCH PAPER: SELF-DEFENCE NIGHTMARE
Samuel Akin Cole
GOVT 280 -B2 -202340
Considering the gravity of the situation, describing this scenario as a nightmare for one's own
self-defense almost feels like an inadequate characterization. Self-defense is a legal defense that
grants a defendant the right to use reasonable force to protect himself or another against
imminent danger if the defendant has a reasonable belief that it is necessary to do so (most courts
require that any person being aided must be privileged to act in self-defense). Self-defense is a
valid defense that allows a defendant to use reasonable force to protect himself or herself against
imminent damage.
A classroom full of people learning self-defense would react in the same way as Knight and
Eagen did. This is an example of the notion of implied assumption of risk, which describes this
scenario. Next, considering the circumstances surrounding Steeple and Eagen, it is quite
probable that Steeple would not have a case in this scenario. It is permissible to use reasonable
force to protect others when one is acting in self-defense to protect others. In this case, the
defendant, Eagen, must have a reasonable belief that the circumstances would support a claim of
self-defense and that his involvement is immediately essential for the safety of the other person
in order to claim the privilege of another. This is required to claim the privilege of another.
For a defendant to be able to raise the defense of another person in some jurisdictions, the
defendant is required to have a special relationship with the person he or she is protecting, such
as a parent-child or husband-wife relationship, for example. However, in the majority of
jurisdictions, it is not necessary for the defendant to have any sort of connection to the person he
or she is defending.
A person who resorts to physical force to defend himself should use no more force than is
necessary to fend off the assault. It is possible to use force that does not result in death in order to
ward off an attack of either type.
It is permissible to use deadly force to repel an attacker who is also using deadly force, but it is
not permissible to use deadly force to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force. Christie
Steeple first assaulted Jack Bond when they were together.
Kelly Knight, a fellow student, intervened in an attempt at self-defense on behalf of Mr. Bond.
Larry Lark was hurt as a result of Knight's attempt, which resulted in her injury. Next, a student
named Bob Eagen, who was also acting in self-defense, managed to restrain Steeple, albeit at the
cost of breaking her arm in the process. Finally, Sandy Slep, an uninvolved student who had not
tried to help in the fight, ran away out of terror and was struck and killed by a car while she was
running.
It would appear that she would have no legal standing to make a claim against Bond in the matter
involving Steeple. Bond's conduct would be considered an assumption of risk, which means that
Steeple would be unable to claim that Bond was negligent. The plaintiff must have actual or
constructive knowledge of the risk; the plaintiff must appreciate the nature of the risk; and the
plaintiff must voluntarily accept the risk based on the time, knowledge, and experience necessary
to make an intelligent choice. These are the elements that make up the concept of the assumption
of risk.
It is not unreasonable to assume that Steeple ought to have anticipated the possibility that a
"self-Defense," The Free Dictionary, last visited February 25, 2018,
https://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law
(Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016), 41 When we consider the circumstances surrounding
Lark, it appears likely that he would not have a legal claim against Knight. Knight was defending
Bond in self-defense and could not have realized what the scenario was at the time. faked or
acted out. In a manner analogous to that of Eagen, Knight was acting in self-defense on behalf of
another. The very nature of Lark being hurt was only an unfortunate side effect of her trying to
look out for someone else. In the end, the crux of the matter is the ability to predict. In the case
of Palsgrave v. Long Island Rail Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), the plaintiff felt that the
defendant was responsible for the injuries she sustained when she attempted to board the moving
train and an employee accidentally knocked her package loose, which in turn caused the contents
of the package to explode and injure the plaintiff.
The plaintiff felt that the defendant should have been held accountable for the injuries she
sustained. At the end of it all, the judge concluded that the defendant was not culpable. The court
concluded that the defendant's actions did not result in a J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law (Boston,
MA: Cengage Learning, 2016), 43. 5 "Defense of Others," Defense of Others, Law Shelf
Educational Media, retrieved on February 25, 2018, argues that there was not an unacceptable
risk of harm to the plaintiff and that the injury she received was not a foreseeable one. 6 In
contrast to the situation that occurred between Lark and Knight, I believe it is possible that Lark
would have a claim against Bond. Bond intentionally put his students in a dangerous scenario,
one in which they could have been hurt in any number of ways, and he should have anticipated
the likelihood of this happening. When seen from the perspective of Judge Andrews, the
proximate cause of the crime was that Bond had a responsibility to "protect society from
unnecessary danger, not to protect A, B, or C alone." 7 When given the opportunity,
Bond did not forego engaging in an activity that put an unreasonable amount of danger in the
path of a number of other people. Lark was hurt as a result of the chain of unfortunate events that
occurred as a direct result of his carelessness. When one considers the fact that the pupils who
retreated to the corners sobbing ended up experiencing emotional damage as a result, it would
appear that Bond would be accountable. Because Bond's actions were deliberate, the court would
be more likely to award damages for the plaintiff's unadulterated mental distress. It was claimed
that several of the students had suffered considerable emotional trauma, which led to their
engaging in extensive counseling.
Most jurisdictions limit legal responsibility to cases involving substantial psychological damage,
such as neuroses, psychoses, persistent sadness, phobias, or shock. 8 It is highly possible that
punitive damages will be awarded as a result of these accusations. The purpose of awarding
punitive damages is twofold: first, to penalize the offender for irresponsible or severe
misconduct, and second, to discourage others from engaging in the same or comparable forms of
wrongdoing. 9 If nothing else, 6 7 J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law, Boston, Massachusetts:
Cengage Learning, 2016. 143. 8 J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning,
2016), page 143 J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016), page
187, p. 161. else in J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016). It is
possible that Bond's actions constitute reckless behavior because he put the lives of his students
in jeopardy without giving any thought to the possible outcomes. The tragic circumstances
surrounding Sandy Slep's passing lend themselves to the idea of intervening causes coming into
play.
An intervening cause is anything that takes place after the negligent conduct committed by the
defendant and that contributes in any way to the injury sustained by the plaintiff. 10 Slep's tragic
death could have been avoided had it not been for the acts of Bond, who caused him to run out of
the building and into the path of an approaching car. Any actions of the defendant that prompt
the negligent behavior of a third party may be considered a proximate cause of the plaintiff's
injuries if it can be shown that the negligent behavior of the third party was not unexpected. 11 If
Slep's relatives felt that Bond was responsible for their loved one's death, they might take legal
action against him for wrongful death. It's possible that the family has a right to compensation
for the financial damage they incurred as a direct result of her passing. 12 The vast majority of
wrongful death claims are filed in the wake of criminal trials. These cases utilize comparable
evidence but have a lower burden of proof than criminal trials. Regardless of the circumstances,
a person who is found to be responsible for a wrongful death may or may not be convicted of a
crime connected to that death. 13 After investigating the likelihood of claims, it appears that
Bond would be liable for creating the scenario and making a reckless choice to put his students
in a potentially dangerous situation.
This conclusion was reached because of the investigation into the possibility of claims. When
Steeple agreed to take part in the experiment, she also assumed the risk that she might be hurt by
one of the students who was unaware of the situation. The students' expressions of sorrow were
as if they were seeing a real-life tragedy. 10 146 in J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law, published by
Cengage Learning in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2016. 11 12 J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law
(Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016), page 147. 13 Tort Law, written by J. Stanley Edwards
and published by Cengage Learning in 2016 in Boston, Massachusetts, 182. "Wrongful Death
Overview," FindLaw; retrieved February 25, 2018, from http://injury.findlaw.com/tortsand-
personal-injuries/wrongful-death-overview.html. 183. "Wrongful Death," Findlaw, retrieved
February 25, 2018. real since they were not aware of the distinction between the two, and the
results turned out to be detrimental and damaging to them in a variety of different ways across
the board. What may have begun as an effort to deliver a lesson to the pupils using an intriguing
new approach ultimately resulted in catastrophe as a direct result of Bond's irresponsibility. The
entry for defense of others can be found at https://lawshelf.com/courseware.
6 J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016), 143.
7 J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016), 143.
8 J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016), 187.
9 J. Stanley Edwards, Tort Law (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016), 161
References
"Defense of Others." Defense of Others - Law Shelf Educational Media. Accessed February 25,
2018. https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/defense-of-others.
Edwards, J. Stanley. Tort law. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2016.
"Self-Defense." The Free Dictionary. Accessed February 25, 2018.
https://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense.
"Wrongful Death Overview." FindLaw. Accessed February 25, 2018.
http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/wrongful-death-overview.html
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
