any law student here? i have some questions that's been bugging me.
on hypothetical situations, let say i walk into a bar or a museum, a stranger punches me. i hit him back, the stranger stumbles and broke a $5000 painting that belonged to the place, so who should be responsible to pay for that?
or even easier, if i invited an acquaintance to my home and he broke my some of stuff, do i have the legal right to sue him for the damages?
imo opinion i think the owner of the place should bare the cost since they willingly let others onto their property
>>1110765
>let say i walk into a bar or a museum, a stranger punches me. i hit him back, the stranger stumbles and broke a $5000 painting that belonged to the place, so who should be responsible to pay for that?
The stranger would bear 50-100% of the cost, and you would bear 0-50% of the cost. It all depends on whether the judge/jury believed that your action in hitting the stranger back was a necessary, reasonable and appropriate response under the circumstances.
>if i invited an acquaintance to my home and he broke my some of stuff, do i have the legal right to sue him for the damages?
Depends. Was he acting in a negligent or reckless manner, or did he break your stuff intentionally? If yes to any of these, then he likely bears some liability. If not, then no.
>>1111040
You're fired.
I'm a legalfag in the Netherlands. And the answer here is fairly simple. But the answer might be wildly different elsewhere.
The person that attacked you is responsible for the damage. He broke the law / violated your rights, he's accountable for the situation it lead to (it's a risk you take by attacking someone), there is damage and there is a direct causality between his actions and the damage.
The same applies to the second situation. The person violated your right to ownership, he can be held accountable, there is damage and there is causality.
And in both cases the law exists to protect the victim against these situations and not for any other reason (relativity).
>>1111078
>The person that attacked you is responsible for the damage. He broke the law / violated your rights, he's accountable for the situation it lead to (it's a risk you take by attacking someone), there is damage and there is a direct causality between his actions and the damage.
Wrong. The cause-in-fact of the damage is you striking the stranger. Whether or not you had privilege to to commit the battery (e.g., self-defense) does not automatically exculpate you from the consequences of the action.
While the stranger bears proximate cause due to the initial battery, that doesn't foreclose the possibility of intermediate cause. Which is why the question can't be fully answered, as I explained. You need to know whether the second battery was committed in a necessary, reasonable and appropriate manner.
>The person violated your right to ownership, he can be held accountable, there is damage and there is causality.
Not every damage has a remedy at law. If I sit in your chair and it breaks, I'm not liable if the chair was old, broken, defective, etc. Even though I was the cause-in-fact of the damage (my sitting in the chair caused it to break) there is no legal remedy unless I violated some duty (negligence, recklessness, willful misconduct).
I don't know any Western legal system that follows different rules, so I highly suspect you're either lying or just plain wrong.
>the law exists to protect the victim
Kek. More evidence to support my conclusion.
>>1111142
A person cannot be held accountable for falling when being pushed.
A person also cannot be held accountable for a necessary and proportional self-defense as that excludes guilt. That's very clear in Dutch law. Self-defense is literally called a "guilt-exclusion clause".
So the next in line in the accountability chain is the original attacker, who has accepted the risk of the fight escalating and causing any kind of damage.
You could argue the causality, if it's direct or indirect, but I'm fairly sure there is enough case law to conclude it's direct. Because again, he could foresee this consequence of his action.
Regarding the second case we are making lots of assumptions. I realize that. As always adding new facts to the case can change how you measure things.
>>1111210
>A person cannot be held accountable for falling when being pushed.
Yes they can, if they took some action before the fall that was a proximate cause of the fall.
>A person also cannot be held accountable for a necessary and proportional self-defense as that excludes guilt.
Thanks for repeating what I already said twice before you. And since we don't have enough information in the original question to determine whether the second battery was self-defence, let alone reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, we cannot answer OP's question.
Also, self defense as a privilege to commit one tort (e.g. battery) is not necessarily a privilege to commit other torts.
>So the next in line in the accountability chain is the original attacker
You're excluding the possibility of shared liability.
>he could foresee this consequence of his action
No one is arguing that the original attacker doesn't have liability. Read my answer, slowly and more carefully. The question is whether the second battery shares liability for the resulting property damage.
>Regarding the second case we are making lots of assumptions
Which is always a mistake, both logically and under the rules of evidence. They should teach you that in Dutch law school.
>>1111222
>>1111222
You're just making the case unnecessary complicated. Law isn't black and white and there are always buts and ifs.
But if OP asks a simple legal question I'm not going to recite the entire law book or avoid answering his question because not all the facts have been established. If you want to give a complete answer covering every possible aspect you'd indeed have to answer every question with: "Well, that depends on all the circumstances of the case."
Which is technically correct, but still a lame answer that no one can work with.
And you're right that if you exclude guilt it also technically doesn't have to mean someone isn't accountable if you separate the facts from each other plus accountability doesn't always require guilt. In civil law the proportionality of someones actions also play a bigger role. But that said, outside of traffic cases where risk accountability plays a bigger role, I do not believe there is a single recorded case here where someone was liable in a civil case after a successful appeal to self-defense.
>>1111326
In the Netherlands your defense doesnt have to be necessary or proportional or even to fend off an imminent attack if you're too upset to make a rational judgement call.
So if someone starts wacking around with a metal pipe or if you shoot up the place with an illegal weapon in self-defence you only have to show you were truly terrified. Which is an easy case to make because it's so subjective. So it's hard to convict someone for damages caused by it.
>>1110765
If someone initiates a fight and you are proven to have used appropriate force to stop them from further harming you, then they are at fault.
However, that only means you were in your rights for self defense. Your lawyer would have to argue the case to the judge/jury of why you should be excused from paying the damage because it wouldn't have happened if the other guy had not instigated the fight.
I'm guessing this would be fairly clean cut if it was a guy violently attacking you and you responding with deadly force, such as a gun. Two grown adults having a fist fight is a legal grey area, because even if a person hits you first, you are still not supposed to hit them back unless you are within your rights to self defense, meaning they didn't escalate after the first punch, you had no duty to retreat, etc.
If they guy punches you in the face, runs away, and you chase him and hit/shoot him, then you re initiated the fight and you are now the aggressor. In this case, you are in the wrong and completely liable. I'm guessing the other lawyer would use this as the premise of arguing who is at fault for the damage.
>>1111326
So you admit that the answer to OP's question depends on the circumstances of the case, which are not given, but you still think you can deduce the correct legal outcome without those facts? This either means you're psychic or the worst lawyer in the world. I'm thinking its the latter.
Only and idiot would give answer a legal question by making a slew of factual assumptions which are neither given in the question NOR stated in the answer. You're just saying whatever comes to mind, and then assuming (after the fact) whatever evidence you think you need to make the answer correct.
(On top of that you don't seem to understand the difference between criminal and civil law, since you keep using world like "guilty" which is a criminal law term when OP asked about liability for damages, i.e., a civil law question. Maybe you can get your money back for that Dutch law degree?)
>>1111382
>If someone initiates a fight and you are proven to have used appropriate force to stop them from further harming you, then they are at fault.
That's wrong. Self-defense is not necessarily an absolute privilege in civil matters. Keep the difference in mind.
If you use appropriate force in self-defence, you're not going to face a CRIMINAL charge for battery.
However, you could face civil liability (e.g, for property) because the reasonableness of your actions are judged by a different legal standard in civil cases. This is because privileges (self-defence, defence of property, necessity, etc.) are typically LIMITED privileges.
(cont.)
Here's an example to explain limited privileges:
Assume you're driving down the road, and suddenly a flash flood washes out the road in front of you. To avoid plummeting into a gully, you have no choice but to drive off the road and into someone's yard. In doing so, you ruin their grass and damage their lawn furniture.
Assume you are arrested for trespassing, and, sued for property damages by the homeowner.
In your CRIMINAL trial for trespassing, you are quickly found innocent. Because even through you technically were trespassing on the homeowner's lawn, the doctrine of necessity gives you a privilege to commit that trespass. You are therefore NOT GUILTY of the criminal charge.
In the CIVIL action, however, you will end up paying for the damages to the homeowners lawn and property. Why? Because the privilege that allows you to trespass does NOT exculpate you from any damages caused by your trespass. Even though you had a very good reason for your car being in the homeowner's lawn, you are still LIABLE for any damages that you caused.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/ploof-putnam.html
Similarly, the privilege of self-defence will shield you from criminal liability when you strike back against your attacker. However, if you cause property damage as a result of your action, you may still bear civil liability.
Hopefully that was clear, as it's sometime difficult to explain technical legal issues to non-lawyers.
>>1111542
Are there even any examples of a person winning a criminal self defense case and then losing the following civil case?
I have never heard of this happening for common self defense situations. Most conservative states even offer special protections for the civil cases if the criminal case is won.
If OP's situation was literally as cut and dry as a guy running up to him, punching him in the face, staying in his personal space long enough for OP to feel threatened, then surely he would win both.
>>1111556
>Are there even any examples of a person winning a criminal self defense case and then losing the following civil case?
Is this a serious question?
>>1111556
>Most conservative states even offer special protections for the civil cases if the criminal case is won.
Some conservative states do have statutes that provide a shield from civil liability in self-defence cases (limited to some forms of civil liability). The reason those statutes exist is because without them, the law is exactly as I stated.
Self-defence, defence of property, necessity and other legal privileges are "common law" doctrines, meaning they have been established by past decisions of judges going back into history. They're not written down into laws (usually) because they already have the full force and effect of law in any civil law country (e.g., the United States).
But, sometimes, legislators want to limit or change common law doctrines. The only way to do that is to write a statute and pass a law. Which they do, sometimes.
It's also part of the reason why the answer to most badly-worded legal questions is: "it depends on the circumstances." Sometimes the answer depends as much on where it happened as what happened.
>>1111559
That was a high profile case that got muddied by a massive number of outside forces.
OJ actually lost his criminal case, but the threat of a riot was too much.
You can find outliers and exceptions to literally everything in existence.
We're talking about a white cis male nobody (OP) getting hit by another white cis male nobody and it doesn't even make it into the local paper.
>>1111572
And now we're at the inevitable end point where we can no longer discuss OP's vague and unspecific hypothetical question.
Quick question
Do you concealed carry ihaz?
thanks all for the replies.
>>1111598
no, i was always here. i want to keep the question generalized because i wanted to know if there is a law that solely exist for this category. otherwise the case would just become a judgement of pros and cons.
>>1111529
In Dutch law guilt is both a criminal and a civil law term. You can use it, although it's not always required, to prove someone is accountable. Before you can get any damages you need to establish there has been a wrongful act. And the easiest way to do that in OP's case is to see if the conditions of a certain criminal law article have been met. This is codified law and not common law. You're making lots of assumptions about a legal system you don't even know.
I'm not sure why you're so upset about the fact I don't add random bullshit to OP's story. Based on the given facts you can draw a legal conclusion just fine. If you add other facts the conclusion changes. So what?
>>1111640
*can be held accountable
>>1111640
The reason why you can draw a conclusion is because the conditions of a wrongful act have been met in both cases, unless someone disputes it and brings new facts to the table.
>>1111640
>I'm not sure why you're so upset about the fact I don't add random bullshit to OP's story.
I've never heard of a legal system that conflates its civil and criminal systems in the manner you describe. I continue to suspect that you're lying, but I honestly have no interest in Dutch law to confirm either way. Regardless, your code-based legal system, whatever it may provide, is wholly inapplicable to any common law country such as the United States, the UK and Australia (which I mention specifically because 4chan is an English language board, in case you'd forgotten).
>I'm not sure why you're so upset about the fact I don't add random bullshit to OP's story.
I called you out specifically because you did in fact add random bullshit (in the form of made-up facts and legal conclusions) to OP's story. You assumed the governing law, the validity of the self-defence privilege, and the reasonableness and proportionality of the response. No real lawyer would do any of the above.
>>1111598
>Do you concealed carry ihaz?
This may be the biggest non sequitur question I've been asked in the two years of this board. Not that I have any intention of discussing such matters here, but I'm curious why such a question would even arise?
>>1111684
It's actually not an non sequitur.
As said above, the OP's question has already been answered to its fullest extent without additional information
It's a completely unrelated question. I just wanted to know how you felt about guns and if you carried one.
I promise you I am not using this as logical fallacy.
I don't have a problem if you don't, just as long as a person's views are consistent with it.
>>1111689
Well, I suppose I can see a relationship between the discussion of self-defence, "stand your ground" laws, and guns. But having said that, nothing I've expressed in this thread relates to my "views." I've simply been pointing out black letter law.
But no, I'm not a gun owner. In the event you find it interesting, I support highly restrictive gun laws, I support the authority of the Federal government to regulate guns, and I do not believe the 2nd Amendment includes the right of private citizens to own firearms under most circumstances.
>>1111706
I have a completely opposing view, but I do give you respect for just saying it instead of dancing around it like most with that viewpoint do, and I assume you live in a country/state that supports that viewpoint.
>>1111710
>I assume you live in a country/state that supports that viewpoint
Sadly, no. Gun culture in America is out of control, even in liberal states. While most in my social and professional circles share my viewpoint, there just isn't enough political will on the issue in the United States to make headway on reform -- even in the face of repeated incidents of horrific gun violence.
>>1111684
Maybe I do jump to conclusions. I'm specialized in tax law which leaves lots of room for fabricating facts. In fact, that's my job. Because the tax agency isn't the one doing the accounting. Ground becomes a building site. Goods become services. The donald duck becomes part of a learning program.
>>1111760
Hijacking this thread. Fellow dutchfag about to study this. What did you like and/or dislike about tax law study?
>>1111770
Well, it's important to read your books. Because if you miss the the basics you're lost and you might as well start over. When I went from the bachelor to the master phase of my study I screwed up badly at first.
But the case law is pretty fun. Especially with VAT. Then you get bullshit cases like how many pages does a book require before it can be qualified as a book. Can you have a book with one page? Ten pages?
If you train a horse and turn it into a racing horse. Did you just create a new horse?
If you loan money to your business and ask 50% interest. Do you get pay a high income tax over the 50% interest or do you pay 1,2% tax over the total sum of the loan as it's an investment?
I think it's fun it leaves room for creativity. But it isn't much different from other fields of law in the sense that it's structured in the exact same way. Only a bit of accounting gets thrown into the mix, which is easy once and if you get it, but hell before that.
>>1111782
Sweet, bedankt.
>>1111786
VAT is really silly. As a business you can ask your the VAT you paid back before you pay VAT at the end of the year.
So you have businesses that send goods across the border and then buy them back. When they buy it they ask for a tax return, but when they sell it they wait with paying their taxes.
So if you do this a dozen times you get lots of money. And then the business goes down before the end of the year.
