MICHAEL SCHUBOWSKY, APPELLANT,
v.
HEARN FOOD STORE, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND QUITMAN EUGENE HEARN, APPELLEES
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.
A grocery store customer was shot by an armed robber during a gunfire exchange when the store proprietor resisted the robbery. The court affirmed a directed verdict for the defendants, holding that a person resisting armed robbery is justified and privileged against liability for injuries to bystanders that result from that lawful resistance.
The proprietor and store owners are not liable. A victim of armed robbery is justified and privileged to resist the robbery, and any injuries to bystanders that result from lawful resistance do not create liability for the resisting party.
[1] A property owner is justified and privileged against liability for injury to a third party resulting from the owner's resistance to a violent crime, such as armed robbery…
[2] A proprietor is privileged to defend his own life and property when faced by armed robbers.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The defendants' employee was privileged and justified in defending his own life and the employers' property when faced by the armed robbers.”
Establishes the core justification for the proprietor's actions in resisting the armed robbery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Schubowsky was a customer in a grocery store owned by appellees Hearn Food Store, Inc. and Quitman Eugene Hearn. Two armed robbers entered t…
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.
Appellant, a customer in a grocery store owned by the appellees, was injured by a robber’s gunshot in a gunfire affray between the store proprietor and two armed robbers, when the proprietor resisted the robbers by attempting to get the “drop” on the robbers and to arrest them. The appellant sued the appellees for damages for personal injuries alleging resistance of the robbers by the proprietor which plaintiff charged was negligent, and alleging the owners were negligent in failing to have an alarm system and for entrusting a firearm to the employee for protection purposes. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed. We hold the ruling of the trial court was correct, and affirm the judgment.
The defendants’ employee was privileged and justified in defending his own life and the employers’ property when faced by the armed robbers. In resisting the robbers, the proprietor had justification over and above an ordinary elective act entailing risk to a third person. When an opportunity arose to get the “drop” on the robbers, the proprietor was entitled to act upon it in resistance of the robbery. The fact that in the course of his resistance, which succeeded in averting the robbery, the customer who was present was shot by one of the robbers, does not operate to negative the justification of the proprietor to so act in such circumstances. A victim of a violent crime, such as armed robbery, is justified and privileged against liability for an injury which may result from his resistance which otherwise could cause actionable damage. See Miracle v. Kriens, *485160 Fla. 48, 33 So.2d 644; Yingst v. Pratt, 1966, 139 Ind.App. 695, 220 N.E.2d 276; Helms v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App.1955, 281 S.W.2d 770; Noll v. Marian, 347 Pa. 213, 32 A.2d 18; 52 Am.Jur., Torts §§ 85, 86; Prosser on Torts, 3rd Ed., §§ 16, 19, 24.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schubowsky v. Hearn Food Store, Inc., 261 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1972)…): We have for review on petition for writ of certiorari a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, upholding a directed verdict entered by the trial court in Respondent’s favor. Schubowsky v. Hearn Food Stores, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 484. I find we have jurisdiction by virtue of a conflict with Cook v. Lewis K. Liggett Co., 1937, 127 Fla. 369, 173 So. 159. Article V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution; Rule 4.5(c) (6), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A. Petitioner was injured during a “shoot out” i…
-
Baker v. 7-11 Food Stores, Inc., 282 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Schubowsky v. Hearn Food Store, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 484, aff’d. Fla.1972, 261 So. 2d 162. OWEN, C. J., and WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Wilford Alexander and Cynthia Alexander v. Allen, 538 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…d that it does not. “A victim of a violent crime, such as armed robbery, is justified and privileged against liability for an injury which may result from his resistance which otherwise could cause actionable damage.” Schubowsky v. Hearn Food Store, 247 So. 2d 484 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), writ discharged, 261 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1972). See also Noll v. Marian, 347 Pa. 213, 32 A. 2d 18 (1943). We note that nothing in the record raised a question of fact concerning whether Allen was engaged in a dangerous or illegal acti…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miracle v. Kriens, 160 Fla. 48 (Fla. 1948)