Courvoisier v. Raymond

Supreme Court of Colorado · 1896 · Torts

self-defensemistakereasonable beliefprivilegetortsself-defensemistakereasonable belief

Facts

Courvoisier was awakened after midnight by intruders trying to enter his jewelry store and building, and he expelled them while armed with a revolver. The expelled men joined others outside and threw stones and brickbats at him, and Courvoisier fired shots as the disturbance continued. Raymond, an officer, approached while calling out to Courvoisier, but Courvoisier testified he did not know Raymond, did not know he was an officer, could not see distinctly without glasses, and believed the approaching man was one of the rioters about to attack or rob him. Courvoisier then deliberately fired and wounded Raymond.

Issue

When a defendant in a civil action shoots the plaintiff during a riotous disturbance, may he avoid liability on a theory of necessary self-defense if the plaintiff was not actually assaulting him, but the defendant honestly and reasonably mistook the plaintiff for one of the attackers? Also, was it error to instruct the jury that it must find for the plaintiff if the plaintiff was not assaulting the defendant at the moment of the shooting?

Rule

In a civil action where the defendant pleads necessary self-defense, he must satisfy the jury not only that he acted honestly in using force, but that his fears were reasonable under the circumstances, and also that the means used were reasonable. If the defendant would have been justified in shooting one of the rioters had such person advanced toward him as the plaintiff did, then the jury must consider whether the defendant honestly mistook the plaintiff for one of the rioters and whether that mistake was excusable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Late at night in Tulsa, Nina Ortiz stood in the doorway of her apartment building after several people had just rushed the lobby, broken a window, and thrown chunks of concrete at her. In the confusion, Devin Cole ran toward her from the same group with one arm raised, and Nina struck him with a metal flashlight, later learning Devin was an off-duty security guard trying to help residents evacuate.

In Devin's civil battery action against Nina, which is the strongest statement of the governing rule?

Explanation. The rule is that a defendant claiming necessary self-defense in a civil action must show an honest belief in the need for force, reasonable grounds for that belief under the circumstances, and reasonable means. The privilege can apply even when the plaintiff was not actually attacking, if the defendant honestly and excusably mistook the plaintiff for an attacker.