TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Am I the only one who thinks our legal system is nuts? You can't sue me, but you can file a suit against me? I can think of only one reason to have such illogical rules; so lawyers can make money. You can't win a suit against me, but you can force me to incur costs that I should not incur by filing a suit against me? Only in America.

The statute doesn't say you can't be sued; it says you are immune from liability. Also, the Texas Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to access the courts with grievances and this is why no law can bar people from filing suit. Tell me just how attorneys make money filing suits they can't win? I'd really like to know that so I can tell my buddies how we can get rich losing.

Chas.

The tort system is tilted decidedly in the favor of plaintiffs from a financial standpoint. In the case of suits where the attorney take a case on contingency and expects to collect from the defendant (either through settlement or decision), the plaintiff incurs no costs at all. The defendant, OTOH, immediately incurs costs whether he is in the right or not. And those costs mount up so quickly that many defendants settle rather than go to court simply because it's less expensive. I have personal experience with just such a case. The attorneys were so aware of the flimsiness of the plaintiff's case that they structured the settlement to give her as little of the proceeds as possible. The rest went to her attorney. But the settlement was for $15,000, and that doesn't include the costs the company incurred for depositions, legal research or affidavits.

In the case we're discussing, a plaintiff could file suit pro se, and the defendant still incurs costs from hiring an attorney and paying court and filing costs, even though the law will always hold him harmless. As you well know, attorneys are not inexpensive. Even a low fee attorney is going to be charging over $100/hr. Then you have court costs and filing fees, all to get a summary judgment for a case that never should have been brought to begin with. That's precisely why I said I would defend myself pro se - to reduce my costs as much as possible. But I shouldn't have to incur any costs at all.

I do not understand the "logic" that says because a citizen is guaranteed the right to access the courts for grievances he should therefore have the right to file a suit that that law clearly states he cannot prevail in. And I can only think of one reason that "logic" exists. It's another way for attorneys to collect fees. The only other logic that makes any sense is that the legal system has decided that it's acceptable for plaintiffs to financially harass a plaintiff via the court system. I doubt anyone would argue that that is the case.

Instead, in the case of civil immunity, the court should simply inform the plaintiff that he has no right to sue in this instance, negating the need for the defendant to incur costs for something for which he is clearly not liable. The plaintiff still has access to the courts for any other grievances he or she might have, so the Constitution has not been nullified.

Am I the only one who thinks our legal system is nuts? You can't sue me, but you can file a suit against me? I can think of only one reason to have such illogical rules; so lawyers can make money. You can't win a suit against me, but you can force me to incur costs that I should not incur by filing a suit against me? Only in America.

srothstein wrote:

baldeagle wrote:We just went through this in another thread. "any remedy", in the instance of a legal use of deadly force is no remedy. Civil immunity means just that. Civil immunity. As in you cannot be sued. Any lawyer that files a civil suit in an instance where deadly force was legally used would have his case thrown out immediately. You wouldn't need to hire an attorney to do that. You simply petition the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, citing 83.001. I wouldn't even bother petitioning the court. I would call the plaintiff's attorney directly and suggest to him that he has two options. He can withdraw the suit and promise, in writing, not to file again, or I will not only petition the court to dismiss with prejudice but I will ask that the attorney be sanctioned and the plaintiff be ordered to pay any court or filing fees that I incurred in the process.

While this has been gone through several times, we still seem to have a disagreement on a basic concept. You can be legally sued. Civil immunity does not mean you cannot be sued. It simply means you cannot be held liable. Being held liable is, by definition, the results of a trial.

Then civil immunity is meaningless, because it is whatever the civil trial jury says it is.

You're right we have a disagreement. To me, if civil immunity is to have any meaning at all, it means you cannot be sued for an act that qualifies under the immunity clause. Diplomats have immunity. It means they cannot be sued. Not that they cannot be found liable. You cannot even file a suit against them. Your contention is that, in the case of the use of deadly force, immunity merely means you cannot be found liable after you have been sued if the jury finds you not liable.

The legal definition of immunity is "exemption from a duty or liability that is granted by law to a person or class of persons " cite. Your contention is that you still have a duty to defend yourself in a civil suit and that you must prove your innocence before the immunity applies. IANAL, but I doubt seriously that is what civil immunity means.

My question to you would be, if immunity means what you think it means, then why was the wording of the law changed from "It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages" to "is immune from civil liability" for the legal use of deadly force? I believe the wording was changed precisely because, in the former case, a citizen who used deadly force lawfully still had to go through the process of a civil suit. Otherwise, the change in wording is meaningless.

KFP wrote:

AEA wrote:

mactex wrote:

AEA wrote:Although I doubt they cover what you say, the likelihood of a civil trial is almost nill on a good shot.

Maybe I've not followed all the laws recently, but my understanding is that a civil suit can still be filed (heck, anyone can file a civil suit for almost any reason) and the costs associated with highering an attorney to get the the case thrown out (because of the current laws) still exist. The laws really only protect you from a trial if you have an attorney who can argue to get the process stopped early on.

You are completely wrong on your assessment. No sensible attorney will even attempt a civil suit in Texas with regard to a good shot by a CHL after a Grand Jury dismisses all charges.

I'll state my opinion that you are both correct. You can not be denied the right to file a civil suit and no sensible attorney would file a civil suit.

Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

We just went through this in another thread. "any remedy", in the instance of a legal use of deadly force is no remedy. Civil immunity means just that. Civil immunity. As in you cannot be sued. Any lawyer that files a civil suit in an instance where deadly force was legally used would have his case thrown out immediately. You wouldn't need to hire an attorney to do that. You simply petition the court to dismiss the case with prejudice, citing 83.001. I wouldn't even bother petitioning the court. I would call the plaintiff's attorney directly and suggest to him that he has two options. He can withdraw the suit and promise, in writing, not to file again, or I will not only petition the court to dismiss with prejudice but I will ask that the attorney be sanctioned and the plaintiff be ordered to pay any court or filing fees that I incurred in the process.