Harris v. Howard County

Supreme Court of Virginia · 2025 · Torts

TortsIllegality defenseSummary judgmentGross negligenceillegality barin pari delictoproximate causefelon in possession

Facts

After officers found Howard and handcuffed him, Deputy Setlock searched him and removed a knife and shotgun ammunition, but later left a confiscated handgun and loaded magazine on the front passenger seat of the police vehicle with an open partition window between the front and back seats. Howard, a convicted felon, discussed with Setlock that he could not lawfully possess ammunition, and he ultimately maneuvered his restrained hands to the front of his body, reached into the front area, and later used the handgun to shoot himself in the head while unattended in the back seat. Howard conceded that he was a convicted felon, that he intentionally shot himself, and that his possession of the firearm violated the felon-in-possession statute. He argued, however, that his alleged unsound mind prevented application of the illegality defense.

Issue

Whether Howard's tort claim for injuries from his self-inflicted gunshot wound was barred by the defense of illegality because his injuries were proximately caused by his unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. More specifically, the question was whether Howard's alleged unsound mind created a material factual dispute by negating the mental state required under Code § 18.2-308.2.

Rule

Virginia's illegality defense bars tort recovery for injuries caused by the plaintiff's own illegal act when a causal relationship, i.e., proximate cause, exists between the illegal act and the claimed injuries. An allegation that the plaintiff was of unsound mind avoids the defense only where unsound mind negates an element of the underlying crime; it does not matter where the statute requires only knowing and intentional possession and is essentially a strict-liability offense beyond that requirement.

🔒

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.

In Richmond, Victor Sloan, a convicted felon, was being transported by a private security contractor after a courthouse appearance. An employee negligently left a loaded pistol in an unlocked console, and Victor knowingly pulled it out and accidentally shot himself in the leg while handling it.

If Victor sues the contractor for negligence, what is the strongest argument for barring his claim under the governing rule?

Explanation. The governing rule bars tort recovery when the plaintiff's own illegal act proximately caused the injury. Here, Victor is a convicted felon who knowingly and intentionally possessed a firearm, and that possession directly led to the shooting injury. The defense does not bar all claims by felons, does not require intent by the defendant, and is distinct from contributory negligence.