Opinion ID: 2691956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Self-defense in negligence causes of action

Text: {¶ 19} The second issue before us is whether a defendant may raise selfdefense as an affirmative defense to a negligence cause of action. Giant Eagle argues that this court has already recognized that self-defense applies to negligence causes of action and that the defense is relevant in view of the facts of this case. Niskanen maintains that self-defense is inconsistent with negligence causes of action when the defendant fails to admit that it acted to intentionally injure the plaintiff and that, even if self-defense may be raised, it is not relevant to the facts of this case. {¶ 20} Giant Eagle asserts the more persuasive argument. We addressed the issue of when self-defense may be raised, albeit in general terms, in Goldfuss v. Davidson (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099. In that case, the plaintiff brought a wrongful-death action, alleging that the defendant had negligently shot and killed the decedent when he fired warning shots at individuals, including the decedent, whom he suspected were attempting to burglarize his barn. After the trial court refused to instruct the jury regarding selfdefense, we reviewed the case to determine whether such an instruction was appropriate. {¶ 21} We affirmatively held that “a defendant may be relieved of liability for tortious conduct by proving that such conduct was in self-defense.” Id. at 124. 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Indeed, self-defense is a “justification defense”; when relevant, it functions as an excuse for an otherwise wrongful act, not as a denial or contradiction of the evidence establishing that the act was committed. State v. Poole (1973), 33 Ohio St.2d 18, 19, 62 O.O.2d 340, 294 N.E.2d 888. There is no reason to limit this defense to one particular type of case or another so long as the defendant’s actions can fairly be said to have been committed in self-defense. {¶ 22} However, relevance is key; the defense must be supported by the facts of the case for the trial court to instruct the jury on self-defense. “[A] trial court need not instruct the jury where there is insufficient evidence to support an issue. In reviewing a record to ascertain whether sufficient evidence exists to support the giving of an instruction, an appellate court should determine whether the record contains evidence from which reasonable minds might reach the conclusion sought by the instruction.” Goldfuss, 79 Ohio St.3d at 124, 679 N.E.2d 1099. Thus, the issue of whether self-defense applies to a particular tort claim is to be determined on a case-by-case basis by examining whether the evidence supports the defense; there is no per se rule against asserting selfdefense in negligence actions. Following this rule, we reviewed the record in Goldfuss and held that self-defense was not applicable because the defendant was not in danger of death or serious bodily harm at the time he fired the warning shots. Id. {¶ 23} We apply this case-by-case factual analysis to the present matter, keeping in mind that a defendant claiming self-defense must prove “(1) that the defendant was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) that the defendant had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) that the defendant did not violate any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” State v. Barnes (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 24, 759 N.E.2d 8 January Term, 2009 1240, citing State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74, 12 O.O.3d 84, 388 N.E. 2d 755, paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 24} Niskanen presented three claims to the jury: (1) negligent failure to train, (2) undue restraint, and (3) spoliation of evidence. The parties agree that the self-defense instruction was not intended to apply to the spoliation claim. However, it is not clear from the jury instructions whether self-defense was intended to apply to both or only one of the other two claims. Further, although the jury found that Giant Eagle had acted in self-defense, it is not clear from the interrogatories whether this finding was directed to one or both claims. In view of this ambiguity, we will address both claims in our analysis of whether the instruction was warranted. {¶ 25} In her cause of action for negligent failure to train, Niskanen alleged that Giant Eagle had a duty to train its employees in industry-standard shoplifter-apprehension techniques, that it breached this duty by failing to give that training, and that this failure proximately caused the employees to pursue and accost Paul in such a way as to cause his death. Viewing the claim in this manner, we find it clear that self-defense is not a proper defense to the alleged wrongful act, the failure to train. It simply makes no sense to say that Giant Eagle failed to provide the appropriate training to defend itself from Paul’s attack. The failure to train occurred well before the attack began and was not performed in response to Paul’s actions. To the extent that the trial court offered the selfdefense instruction for this claim, it erred. {¶ 26} However, this error is harmless. As discussed above, Giant Eagle was deemed to be negligent under this cause of action, but the jury found that it was only 40 percent liable for Paul’s injuries. Thus, the application of the comparative-negligence defense already completely erased the consequences of the jury’s finding of negligence against Giant Eagle. Because Giant Eagle did not need to rely on self-defense to avoid liability on this claim, Niskanen was not 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO prejudiced by the erroneous self-defense instruction and is therefore not entitled to reversal of the jury verdict in that regard. See Smith v. Flesher (1967), 12 Ohio St.2d 107, 110, 41 O.O.2d 412, 233 N.E.2d 137 (“It is an elementary proposition of law that an appellant, in order to secure reversal of a judgment against him, must not only show some error but must also show that that error was prejudicial to him”). {¶ 27} Self-defense is more relevant to Niskanen’s claim for undue restraint. Pursuant to R.C. 2935.041(A), a merchant with probable cause to suspect shoplifting may detain the suspect in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable length of time. Niskanen claimed that Giant Eagle’s employees exceeded their authority under this statute by detaining Paul in an unreasonable manner and for an unreasonable time. {¶ 28} The restraint at issue here occurred after Giant Eagle’s employees attempted to detain Paul outside the store for shoplifting. Instead of submitting to the employees’ requests to stop, Paul punched both the first employee who came toward him and the manager who intervened, and also fought with two passersby who came to the aid of the employees. After a short but intense altercation, the men held Paul on the ground as he continued to struggle. {¶ 29} These facts present sufficient evidence to support the self-defense instruction issued by the trial court under the Goldfuss analysis. Reasonable minds could conclude that (1) the employees did not start the fight, since Paul threw the first punch, thereby escalating an otherwise peaceful encounter into a violent one; (2) the employees had a bona fide belief that they were in danger of great bodily harm, since Paul had punched each of them and continued to fight as others tried to restrain him, and that the only way of ending the fight was to subdue and restrain Paul; and (3) the employees did not violate a duty to retreat or avoid the danger, since they were acting within their rights to pursue and detain 10 January Term, 2009 Paul under R.C. 2935.041 and then merely responded to Paul’s violent attacks until he was subdued. {¶ 30} Although Niskanen alleges that the employees used more force than was necessary to defend themselves and that they continued to use force after the threat was eliminated, these are factual issues for the jury to consider in determining whether the employees acted in self-defense, not arguments against giving a self-defense instruction in the first place. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it instructed the jury on self-defense on the claim for undue restraint. {¶ 31} To avoid this result, Niskanen claims that Giant Eagle can assert self-defense only if it acknowledges that its employees intentionally used deadly force (in this case, a chokehold) to subdue Paul and that it is precluded from doing so because it claimed throughout the case that Paul’s death was an accident. We disagree. While a defendant claiming self-defense typically admits intentionally using force to repel a danger, see Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 24, 759 N.E.2d 1240, we have never stated that a defendant must admit intending to cause the specific injury that resulted in order to receive the benefit of the defense. In other words, Giant Eagle was required to admit only that its employees intentionally held down Paul to subdue him, which it did, not that the employees intended to hold him to the ground until he died. Again, the issue of whether the employees used excessive force is an issue of fact for the jury to consider, not a factor in determining whether a self-defense instruction should be given. {¶ 32} Because the trial court’s only errors relating to the self-defense instruction were harmless, there is no reversible error pertaining to this proposition of law.