Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Florida

Re: Destruction of property trying to rescue a friend, am I liable?

NOTE: By reading the �Response� to your question or comment, you agree that the opinion expressed is not intended to, nor does it, create any attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. If you do not agree, then stop right here, and do not read any further.

RESPONSE: I do not have an answer for you but this is what my research revealed: There is no reported Florida decision that holds that a defendant to an action for battery may employ the defense that his or her use of force was justified because he or she was defending another person from bodily injury. Florida criminal law may be instructive on the resolution of this issue. Florida Statutes Section 776.012 provides that a person who reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to defend another person from a third party's imminent use of unlawful force may use force against the third party. However, the statute prohibits the use of deadly force unless a person reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the other person's death, great bodily injury, or the commission of a forcible felony [ � 776.012, Fla. Stat. ]. Forcible felonies include treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; carjacking; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony that involves the use of or threat to use force or violence [ � 776.08, Fla. Stat. ]. The issues of whether a person was justified in using force and whether he or she used excessive force are questions of fact to be determined by the circumstances of each case [see Hancock v. State, 276 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) ; see also J.Y. v. State, 332 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) ].

Additionally, although there are no Florida cases on point, it is generally recognized that a private citizen may enter the land of another for the purpose of protecting the land or the chattels of the owner or of a third person.n21 However, this privilege is lost if the actor knows or should know that the person for whose benefit the entry is made would not wish such action to be taken.n22 If the action has been taken for the purpose of public necessity, the trespass is justified and no liability for any resulting damages will attach.n23 Thus, when one enters the property of another to prevent possible damage to the community at large caused by fire, flood, or pestilence, the actor's trespass is excused.n24

To be safe, I would pay the amount and would request that the person who you were protecting give you the money, and in return she can go after the person who was battering her.

Good Luck,

Randall Gilbert