DONALD ETCHER, ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES B. BLITCH, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Court affirmed judgment for defendant in assault and battery case, holding that the intentional shooting was not negligence and self-defense was a complete bar to liability.
An intentional shooting, even if intended only to frighten, constitutes an intentional tort to which self-defense is an absolute bar, and cannot be characterized as negligence.
[1] An intentional act of firing a weapon, even if intended only to frighten rather than injure, constitutes an intentional tort to which self-defense is an absolute bar, and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonald Etcher was shot and seriously wounded by James Blitch during a running encounter between their automobiles; Blitch raised a revolver while the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Intentional Tort cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Acting Chief Judge.
The jury found for the defendant on appellants’ claim of assault and battery, apparently crediting defendant’s defense of self-defense, after the trial court on defendant’s motion eliminated appellants’ alternative claim of negligence and with it the possibility of a partial recovery by plaintiffs on a theory of comparative negligence. Although the question is a close one, we believe the trial judge properly ruled that the tort committed was an intentional one, to which a plea of self-defense is an absolute bar, and that there was no legitimate view of the evidence on which the jury could have found that defendant shot appellant Donald Etcher negligently, that is to say, unintentionally and without due care. Etcher was seriously wounded in the climax of a running encounter between his automobile and the defendant’s. At one point, while the cars were moving, defendant raised a revolver in the air to frighten Etcher. When the cars stopped, Etcher rushed defendant’s automobile, pounded on the top, and thrust his hand through the half-open window in an attempt to open the locked door. Then defendant pointed the revolver in Etcher’s general direction intending, he said, to frighten Etcher by shooting out the window; he shot Etcher instead. His act was in law intentional, not negligent. Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1972); McDonald v. Ford, 223 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Stafford v. Hayes, 327 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McDONALD, 676 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…rent from intentional acts. See, e.g., White Const. Co., Inc. v. Dupont, 455 So. 2d 1026 (Fla.1984) (gross negligence will not sustain an award of punitive damages, but reckless indifference equivalent to intentional conduct will); Etcher v. Blitch, 381 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (a plea of [*21] self-defense is an absolute bar to an action based on intentional shooting but is not an absolute bar to a claim based on negligence), cert. den., 386 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1980); Cruise v. Graham, 622 So. 2d 37, 40 (F…
-
Clemmons v. Am. States Ins. Co., 412 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…rue that the intentional infliction of injuries on another is wrongful, that rule is not absolute. Many times it is not wrongful in the legal sense, such as in self-defense or when a guard is preventing a convict from escaping. In Etcher v. Blitch, 381 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), after an altercation between two drivers, Etcher, on foot, attacked Blitch’s vehicle with Blitch in it. Blitch pointed a revolver at Etcher intending, he said, to frighten Etcher by shooting out the window glass. Nevertheless th…
-
Marshall v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 534 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…d DCA 1974)_ Accordingly, an assault and battery committed by the insured has been held to be an intentional tort which is not covered by insurance policies which insure against an “accident.” [Emphasis added]. 343 So. 2d at 651. Etcher v. Blitch, 381 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So. 2d 636 (Fla.1980), cited in Clemmons, recognized that self-defense constitutes a defense to an action for assault and battery. Similarly, in Price v. Gray’s Guard Service Incorporated, 298 So. 2d 461, 464 (…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spivey v. Battaglia, 258 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1972)
- McDONALD v. Ford, 223 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Stafford v. Hayes, 327 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)