Case Title: Howsley v. Gilliam

Citation: 517 S.W.2d 531

Docket Number: B-4490

State: texas

Court: Texas Supreme Court

Date: 1975-01-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
517 S.W.2d 531 (1975) Kay Morris HOWSLEY et al., Petitioners, v. Harvey GILLIAM, Respondent. No. B-4490. Supreme Court of Texas. January 8, 1975. Weldon & Smith, Inc., P. C., Gerald J. Smith, El Paso, for petitioners. Shafer, Gilliland, Davis, Bunton & McCollum, Inc., Perry Davis, Jr., Odessa, for respondent. *532 SAM D. JOHNSON, Justice. This is a suit for wrongful death brought by the surviving parents and the estate of Robert C. Howsley, who was shot and killed while removing a battery from respondent Dr. Harvey Gilliam's automobile. The trial court granted summary judgment for Gilliam and the court of civil appeals affirmed. 503 S.W.2d 628. We reverse. It is undisputed that on October 26, 1971 at approximately 11:00 p. m. Robert Howsley, who was eighteen years of age, was engaged in attempting to steal a battery from Dr. Gilliam's car. The car was parked in the driveway of Dr. Gilliam's home. Harlan Gilliam, Dr. Gilliam's minor son, heard a noise in the front yard, looked out and saw someone attempting to open the hood of his father's car. He informed his father of what he had seen. Dr. Gilliam obtained a .22 rifle from a closet and went upstairs to his son's room to observe from a window. Dr. Gilliam's position at the window was approximately thirty feet from the event he was observing. Though it was dark, Dr. Gilliam was able to perceive the shadowy figure of a person bent over the engine compartment of his automobile. He saw this person lift the battery out of the car, set it down in front of the car, and close the hood. At this time Dr. Gilliam decided to fire a warning shot at the intruder's feet in order to apprehend him and to keep him from running away. The rifle shot, however, which traveled the approximate thirty-foot distance, struck Howsley in the head, killing him instantly. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant Gilliam on the ground that Article 1222, Vernon's Texas Penal Code Annotated (hereinafter cited as Article 1222), exonerated Gilliam as a matter of law for civil liability for the shooting. The court of civil appeals affirmed, holding that establishment of the defense of justifiable homicide under Article 1222 precluded the recovery of damages under the wrongful death statute. Article 1222 provided: The issue presented to this court is whether Article 1222 provides, in a civil case, exoneration as a matter of law for a killing which we assume would otherwise be actionable. We hold it does not. It is well established that the mere fact the Legislature adopts a criminal statute does not mean this court must accept it as a standard for civil liability. Parrott v. Garcia, 436 S.W.2d 897, 899 (Tex.1969); Rudes v. Gottschalk, 159 Tex. 552, 324 S.W.2d 201 (1959). See 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts §§ 17.5, 17.6 (1956); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 286-288B (1965); Thayer, Public Wrong and Private Action, 27 Harv.L.Rev. 317 (1913); Morris, The Role of Criminal Statutes in Negligence Actions, 49 Colum. L.Rev. 21 (1949). In Rudes v. Gottschalk, supra, Justice Norvell explained the discretion of the court: Article 1222 establishes the minimum standard of conduct necessary to relieve one from the burden of criminal prosecution. The statute's purpose is to delineate the exceptional circumstances under which an individual who would otherwise be guilty of criminal homicide is exonerated. If an individual establishes that he is within the ambit of the protection afforded by the statute, he is not, in essence, a wrongdoer under the criminal law. In the instant case the court of civil appeals apparently adopted the reasoning underlying the theory of negligence per se to arrive at the conclusion that Article 1222 precluded civil liability. Under the negligence per se doctrine, civil law will not condone behavior which does not at least meet the minimum standard for behavior set by penal statutes. Violation of a penal statute will thus result in civil liability as a matter of law. E.g., Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis, 149 Tex. 507, 235 S.W.2d 609 (1950); Rial v. Curtis, 274 S.W.2d 117 (Tex.Civ.App.Galveston 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.). However, it is well established that civil law can require a higher standard of behavior than that established by the criminal law. See, e. g., Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts 203, 204 (4th Ed. 1971); Morris, The Role of Criminal Statutes in Negligence Actions, supra at 43. Thus, proof that an individual did not violate any penal law would not necessarily preclude civil liability. It follows that simply because one may be statutorily relieved from criminal prosecution does not mean he will be universally exonerated from civil liability when his conduct falls below the minimum standard applicable to the civil law. This has now been expressly recognized by the Legislature by its enactment of Section 9.06 of the Penal Code, Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Dr. Gilliam argues that in any event it is conclusively established in this state that the killing of an individual engaged in theft at night is not actionable as a matter of law. In support of his contention respondent relies upon a series of cases, the first of which is March v. Walker, 48 Tex. 372 (1877). In March suit was instituted by the minor children of the deceased to recover damages for the alleged willful and malicious killing of their father. The defendants alleged that they were acting in self-defense, and that the killing was therefore justifiable homicide. The March court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to show a wrongful killing since it was done in the justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. The holding of the court was thus grounded upon the fact that self-defense was conclusively established. In McMurrey Corporation v. Yawn, 143 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Civ.App.Texarkana 1940, writ ref'd), the element of self-defense was also present and was likewise considered controlling. In that case there was evidence that the plaintiff's decedent had threatened to kill the defendant several times before the final confrontation, and that on the night of the killing he attempted to carry out his prior threats. The court held that if the defendant was acting in his own self-defense at the time he shot and killed the deceased, the killing would not be wrongful. In other words, if the jury could find that it reasonably appeared to the defendant that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to defend himself with deadly force. The holding specifically related to the establishment of justification by reason of self-defense, and the court pointed out that the law of self-defense is the same in a criminal prosecution as it is in a civil prosecution. See also Fambrough v. Wagley, 140 Tex. 577, 169 S.W.2d 478 (1943) and Bradford v. Fort Worth Transit Company, 450 S.W.2d 919 (Tex.Civ.App.Fort Worth 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.), both of which involved self-defense and in which the courts held that the law of self-defense is the same in both civil and criminal cases. None of the cases cited involved allegations that the justification provisions of the Penal Code precluded civil liability. There are, however, two cases which have ostensibly applied the justification articles of the Penal Code to instances similar to the instant case, Ater v. Ellis, 227 S.W. 222 (Tex.Civ.App.Amarillo 1921, writ dism'd) and Redmon v. Caple, 159 S.W.2d 210 (Tex.Civ.App.Texarkana 1942, writ ref'd w. o. m.). In Ater v. Ellis, supra, the plaintiff, a fourteen-year-old boy, was shot while in the defendant's yard at night, apparently for the purpose of confirming reports he had heard that young ladies in the house could be seen undressing in front of an unshaded window. The boy had *535 been hiding in a hedge in the defendant's yard, and the defendant testified that when he accosted what he thought was a "man" hiding in the shrubbery the boy jumped to his feet and approached the defendant menacingly. In fear for his life, the defendant shot the boy. The jury found that the defendant reasonably feared danger to himself, his home and family, and that he exercised due care after discovering the boy. The court, referring to the predecessor statute to Article 1222, stated: Though it appears in dictum that the court of civil appeals in Ater concluded the criminal statute justifying homicide to prevent theft was applicable to civil liability, the actual circumstances involved a fear of bodily harm to the defendant and his family. In addition, the defendant pleaded and obtained favorable jury finding on the issue of self-defense. In the instant case there was no pleading or finding of self-defense. Moreover, the language quoted from Ater states that the defendant is required to exercise due caution before shooting. Such a requirement necessarily entails a fact determination which, in the instant case, would preclude summary judgment. In Redmon v. Caple, supra, Redmon and Caple were involved in an altercation one evening. Later that same evening Redmon and two others came to the house of Caple and demanded admittance. Caple fired a gun at them through the kitchen window and, in escaping, Redmon stumbled into a ditch and sustained leg injuries for which he sued. None of the shots actually hit Redmon. The court held that Article 1142 of the Penal Code, which was quite similar to Article 1222, was applicable. Article 1142 exonerated a defendant from criminal liability if he used violence in preventing an unlawful intrusion upon the possession of his property. The court emphasized that the defendant neither aimed at nor hit either of the plaintiffs. Redmon v. Caple, supra, is unlike the instant case in two critical particulars: the defendant's shot did not actually hit the plaintiff and, even more significantly, the element of self-defense was clearly present since the plaintiff at the time of the shooting was attempting to force his way into the defendant's house. None of the courts in the cited cases specifically held that the statute justifying homicide to prevent theft would prevent recovery of damages under the wrongful death statute. Rather, those cases all turned on the fact that self-defense was clearly established. Consequently, those decisions do not require this court to hold that the defendant in the instant case, where there was neither allegation nor proof of self-defense, is exonerated from civil liability. We hold that in the instant wrongful death action based on negligence, where there are no allegations of self-defense, defense *536 of others, or defense of property, the shield of justifiable homicide provided by Article 1222 confers no exoneration upon Dr. Gilliam. As the instant case reaches this court, it has been presented solely on grounds of negligence. In his petition the plaintiff has limited his allegations to those of gross and ordinary negligence on the part of Dr. Gilliam. In response, Dr. Gilliam has alleged contributory negligence on the part of Howsley. We have not been presented with, and express no opinion on the applicability of, questions concerning battery, use of reasonable force to protect one's property, assumed risk, discovered peril or other such matters. The judgment of the court of civil appeals is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court. McGEE, J., notes his dissent. [1] Article 1222 itself has now been succeeded by Texas Penal Code, Section 9.42, V.T.C.A., which provides: "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: "(1) If he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 of this code; and "(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: "(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or "(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and "(3) he reasonably believes that: "(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or "(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."