Morris v. Platt - 32 Conn. 75 (1864)

Rule:

A man is not liable, in an action of trespass on the case, for any unintentional consequential injury resulting from a lawful act, where neither negligence nor folly can be imputed to him, and that the burden of proving the negligence or folly, where the act is lawful, is upon the plaintiff.

Facts:

One of the defendants was assaulted by plaintiff’s brother-in-law. A struggle ensued between the defendants and plaintiff’s group, resulting in plaintiff’s injury obtained from two pistol shots fired by another defendant. At trial, defendants asked the court to charge the jury, that to render them liable to the plaintiff in action, there had to have been an unlawful intention or some neglect or fault on their part. The court did not charge the jury as requested by the defendants, and the defendants were found liable for assault. Defendants filed a motion for a new trial. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in not giving the jury instructions requested by the defendants? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court held that the trial court erred by not giving the instruction. The charge as given correctly informed the jury what the law of self-defense was, but that was not all to which defendants were entitled. The court held that the rule of law applicable to the facts claimed was well-settled and that it was the duty of the court to give it to the jury as requested and to direct them, that if they found the facts as claimed, to find a verdict accordingly.