Ballew v. Davis
1946 Cal. App. LEXIS 728, 76 Cal.App.2d 418, 173 P.2d 317 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual may lawfully use such force as is necessary to protect oneself from bodily injury when under actual or threatened assault.
Facts:
- On April 12, 1945, a newspaper photographer and an associate manager of the Southern California Symphony Association were waiting at the Pasadena railroad station for the arrival of Signor Toscanini.
- The association manager approached the photographer and asked if he intended to take a flashbulb picture of Signor Toscanini.
- The photographer responded, 'Who the hell are you?'
- The manager identified himself and reiterated his question, to which the photographer affirmed his intention to use a flashbulb.
- The manager requested the photographer not to use a flashbulb, explaining it would be harmful to Signor Toscanini, cause him physical pain, hurt his eyes, and potentially incapacitate him from conducting a benefit performance.
- The photographer replied, 'Who the hell is Toscanini. Get out of my way.'
- As the train bearing Signor Toscanini stopped and he stood in the vestibule, the manager placed himself between the photographer and Signor Toscanini.
- A scuffle ensued between the photographer and the manager, resulting in the photographer suffering injuries to his back and lacerations to three fingers of his right hand.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (newspaper photographer) filed a lawsuit against the defendant (associate manager of the Southern California Symphony Association) in a trial court to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery.
- The case was tried before the trial court without a jury.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual have a legal right to use only such force as is necessary to protect oneself from bodily injury when faced with an actual or threatened assault?
Opinions:
Majority - McCOMB, J.
Yes, an individual has a legal right to use only such force as is necessary to protect oneself from bodily injury when faced with an actual or threatened assault. The trial court found that the defendant manager acted in self-defense, as the plaintiff photographer repeatedly threatened and actually assaulted the defendant, and would have struck him with a camera, tripod, or fists if the defendant had not defended himself. The court explicitly found that the defendant used 'barely sufficient force to restrain plaintiff from doing or attempting to do bodily injury to defendant.' Since the sufficiency of this finding was not questioned, the defendant's actions were legally permissible under Civil Code §50, which grants the right to use necessary force for self-defense. The court deemed other arguments, such as whether the defendant used sufficient force to protect Signor Toscanini or claims regarding freedom of the press, immaterial given the established fact of self-defense. The appellate court also presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the trial judge applied the correct legal standard (e.g., a reasonably prudent man standard) during the proceedings.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the legal right to self-defense as a justification for actions that would otherwise constitute assault and battery. It highlights that the core inquiry in such cases is the necessity and proportionality of the force used to repel an actual or threatened attack, superseding collateral issues like journalistic freedom or protection of third parties. Furthermore, the decision underscores a key appellate principle: trial court findings and the application of legal rules are generally presumed correct unless explicitly demonstrated otherwise by the appellant.
