Bradley v. Hunter
413 So. 2d 674 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person may use the force that appears reasonably necessary to protect against a threatened injury, and this determination depends on the specific facts of the case, including the parties' relative physical attributes, reputations for violence, and who was the aggressor.
Facts:
- Aurila Hunter, a 65-year-old woman in poor health, operated a cafe with her 82-year-old mother.
- J.W. Bradley, a 28-year-old man with a reputation for violence and a significant criminal record, had threatened Hunter on at least two prior occasions, causing her to fear him.
- On the night of the incident, Bradley entered the cafe, was refused service by Hunter, and proceeded to curse at and threaten both elderly women.
- After Bradley left the cafe, Hunter retrieved a .38 caliber revolver that was kept under the counter for protection.
- While Hunter and her mother were on the cafe's front porch, Bradley turned and began walking rapidly toward them with his fists clenched, arms flailing, and continuing to curse and threaten them.
- Hunter verbally warned Bradley to go away and then fired at least one warning shot, which did not deter him.
- As Bradley continued his aggressive advance, Hunter, from a distance of about thirty feet, fired another shot that struck and killed him.
- Hunter testified that she was in fear for her and her mother's safety at the time she fired the fatal shot.
Procedural Posture:
- Susie Mae Bradley, on behalf of herself and her minor children, filed a wrongful death and survival suit against Aurila F. Hunter and Ora Edwards in a Louisiana trial court.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' exception of no cause of action as to Susie Mae Bradley's individual claim because she was not legally married to the decedent, J.W. Bradley.
- The suit proceeded to a non-jury trial on the claims on behalf of the decedent's children.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants made a motion for dismissal (referred to in the opinion as a motion for a directed verdict).
- The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff's suit on the grounds that Hunter had acted in justifiable self-defense.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
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 a person act in justifiable self-defense when using deadly force against an unarmed aggressor who, after making prior and contemporaneous threats, advances in a threatening manner, causing the person to reasonably fear for their safety and the safety of another?
Opinions:
Majority - Cutrer, J.
Yes. A person acts in justifiable self-defense under these circumstances. The court found that Hunter's use of deadly force was reasonable because she had a credible fear of bodily harm. The court's reasoning was based on the totality of the circumstances: the significant disparity in age, size, and health between Hunter and Bradley; Bradley's known reputation for violence and his past threats against Hunter; his role as the aggressor who entered her establishment and continued to threaten her; and his persistent aggressive advance towards the two elderly women on their own porch, even after being given both a verbal warning and a warning shot. The court distinguished this case from others where self-defense was disallowed, noting that Hunter was in a vulnerable position without the protection of others or physical barriers, making her belief that she needed to use deadly force to prevent harm to herself and her mother a reasonable one.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the reasonable person standard in tort law self-defense claims. It emphasizes that the reasonableness of force is not judged in a vacuum but is highly fact-dependent, considering the entire context of the confrontation, including prior events and the parties' characteristics. The decision reinforces the principle that deadly force can be justified against an unarmed attacker if the circumstances create a reasonable belief of imminent, serious bodily harm. For future cases, it serves as a precedent that a victim's knowledge of an aggressor's violent reputation is a critical factor in assessing the reasonableness of their fear and subsequent defensive actions.
Unlock the full brief for Bradley v. Hunter