Doctrine of Transferred Intent

[luzyfuerza]

Greg Ellifritz included this link in his May 26 Weekend Knowledge Dump (https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/):

https://mylegalheat.com/blog/are-you-liable-for-a-passthrough-or-missed-shot/

My questions for the legal experts here:

1) Does the author describe this doctrine correctly?

2) How is this doctrine typically applied in cases of justified self-defense?

 

[bdickens]

Well, since the author is an attorney I would expect that he described it correctly.

 

[KyJim]

First, the law in each state may vary. Beware of blanket assertions covering a multitude of states.

For instance, in the shooting of death of Breonna Taylor during a botched search, one officer was charged with three counts of wanton endangerment (felonies) for shots that went through walls and endangered the occupants who lived in a different apartment. The officer was acquitted by a jury.

So, though the officer was found not guilty, he had to go through a trial to get there.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/na...anton-endangerment-during-breonna-taylor-raid

 

[luzyfuerza]

@KyJim thanks for this.

From the article:

"Kentucky Attorney General David Cameron's prosecutors asked a grand jury to indict Hankison on charges of endangering Taylor's neighbors, but declined to seek charges against any officers involved in Taylor's death."

The two officers who were at the doorway, Mattingly and Cosgrove, fired 32 rounds and never hit Walker, the guy with the gun. But they did hit Taylor, causing her death.

All three commited the same act: they fired and missed. All injured or endangered others by missing.

But, Cameron believed that Mattingly and Cosgrove were reasonably defending themselves. And that Hankison's actions, despite his claims of acting in defense of innocent third parties, were not reasonable.

This would seem to be two examples of the doctrine of transferred interests at work, all in one event.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

I am in the criminal law field, not civil, so my experience is not based in liability but rather criminal culpability. So I have no direct experience. Also, I've never seen it come up in a criminal matter either.
However, I'll point out that I was surprised that a lawyer is so quick to speak in absolutes. We tend to not do that. That's why we answer questions with "it depends" so often.

For instance this statement from the article:
No. The lawsuit against you will be dismissed and will need to be brought against the attacker with the knife. You are free from liability under the doctrine of transferred intent.

It states that the lawsuit will be dismissed, and you are free from liability. Well maybe it will, and maybe you are. But the judge may let it go to the jury. If this is the case, it may be overturned on appeal, but not until after a long and expensive process.
Be careful of absolutes. If a lawyer guarantees you a specific result, you should probably find another lawyer.

In the Restatement of Torts that the author cites, it gives and example of an exception to this doctrine.

A points a pistol at B, threatening to shoot him. B attempts to shoot A, but his bullet goes astray and strikes C, an innocent bystander. B is not liable to C unless, taking into account the exigency in which A's act placed B, B fired his self-defensive shot in a manner unnecessarily dangerous to C.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 75 (1965)

Again, be careful of absolutes. The author gives an absolute, then later in his article, cites an exception. Well if there are exceptions (which is nearly always the case), then it's not an absolute.
Words matter.

 

[Anvil Jenkins]

while I am not an attorney, nor play one on television...but as said "Beware of blanket assertions"

I have US Law Shield and will call and ask that question.

 

[Spats McGee]

I am in the criminal law field, not civil, so my experience is not based in liability but rather criminal culpability. So I have no direct experience. Also, I've never seen it come up in a criminal matter either.
However, I'll point out that I was surprised that a lawyer is so quick to speak in absolutes. We tend to not do that. That's why we answer questions with "it depends" so often....

I have experience in both civil and criminal law and all I can say is: This, this, 100x this. You might even note that @Arkansas Paul didn't speak in absolutes in discussing that fact. Be wary of lawyers who give you absolute, 100% answers.

 

[wayneinFL]

It sounds the the doctrine of transferred intent is absolute enough in theory, but having the time, money, and ability to prove it applies in practice is not absolute at all.

Sounds like the same kind of reasoning behind the felony murder rule in criminal law.

I'm just going to continue to try not to shoot people who don't need to be shot.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm just going to continue to try not to shoot people who don't need to be shot.

As is our legal obligation....

 

[Spats McGee]

...I'm just going to continue to try not to shoot people who don't need to be shot.

That's a very good start!

 

[luzyfuerza]

Clearly, we are obligated to train to avoid missing, and to select ammo that minimizes risk of bullets passing through the threat. To avoid hurting people and things that don't need to be shot.

But sometimes, misses and shoot-throughs do happen, despite our best efforts.

If the absolute that there will be no liability for a missed shot if the defender was justified in shooting to defend himself is faulty,

then

is the opposite absolute (really a training truism) that every missed shot is headed for a busload of nuns who are also personal injury lawyers also faulty?

Should trainers express more nuance about the legal risks associated with missing? Or shooting through a threat?

 

[wayneinFL]

Should trainers express more nuance about the legal risks associated with missing? Or shooting through a threat?

I'm all for honesty. You're not a lawyer. Every company that runs a FL gun show ccw course starts it with a disclaimer that they aren't giving legal advice.

But I don't think it's a lie or legal advice to say you are responsible for any bullet that comes out of your gun. It's a moral or ethical responsibility.

And it's not wrong to say you can expect to get sued for shooting a bystander. Doesn't mean they will win, or that you will go broke winning.