Hattori v. Peairs
662 So.2d 509 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a dangerous weapon to repel a perceived attack is justified only when the actor's fear of imminent death or great bodily harm is both genuine and founded upon facts that would produce similar emotions in a person of reasonable prudence.
Facts:
- Yoshihiro Hattori (Yoshi), a 16-year-old Japanese exchange student, and his friend Webb Haymaker went to a Halloween party on October 17, 1992.
- The boys were dressed in costumes; Yoshi was dressed as John Travolta from 'Saturday Night Fever' and Webb was dressed as an accident victim. Neither wore a mask.
- They mistakenly went to the home of Rodney and Bonnie Peairs, believing it was the party's location, and rang the doorbell.
- After no one answered the front door, the boys walked towards a carport door. Bonnie Peairs opened the door, was startled by their appearance, slammed the door shut, and yelled for her husband, Rodney Peairs, to 'Get the gun.'
- Rodney Peairs retrieved a loaded .44 magnum revolver from his bedroom closet without asking his wife for any explanation.
- Peairs opened the carport door, saw Yoshi approaching him with a smile, and heard him say, 'We're here for the party!'
- Peairs yelled 'Freeze,' but Yoshi, who was not wearing his contact lenses and was nearsighted, continued to walk towards him.
- From his doorway, Rodney Peairs shot Yoshi once in the chest, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- Masaichi and Mieko Hattori (Yoshi's parents) filed a wrongful death and survival action against Rodney Peairs, Bonnie Peairs, and their insurer in a Louisiana trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial judge rendered judgment in favor of the Hattoris.
- The trial court found Rodney Peairs liable and awarded damages totaling $653,077.85.
- The insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau, paid its policy limits of $100,000 plus interest and did not appeal.
- Rodney Peairs, as defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. The Hattoris were the plaintiffs-appellees.
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 homeowner's use of deadly force against an unarmed, non-threatening individual, who mistakenly approached the homeowner's property for a party, constitute an unreasonable and unjustified battery for which the homeowner is civilly liable?
Opinions:
Majority - Lottinger, Chief Judge
No. A homeowner's use of deadly force under these circumstances is not justified because it is unreasonable. While the defendant's fear of harm may have been genuine, it was not reasonable under the circumstances, as a reasonable person would not have perceived an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm from an unarmed, smiling teenager who announced a peaceful purpose. Peairs had sufficient time and opportunity to remain inside his home and summon help rather than resort to deadly force. The act was intentional because Peairs intended to fire the gun, and serious injury or death was a substantially certain consequence of that act. Furthermore, comparative fault is not applicable to the victim, as Yoshi's actions did not provoke the shooting and comparing fault in the face of such an extreme and unreasonable intentional act would violate public policy.
Concurring - Fitzsimmons, Judge
Yes, I concur that the homeowner's use of deadly force was unreasonable and therefore not justified. However, I disagree with the trial judge's suggestion that simply shutting a door and waiting for police is always a reasonable option, particularly for those in rural areas where police response may be slow. Additionally, I find the damage award to be an abuse of discretion, as it is inconsistent with awards in similar Louisiana cases. The legal standard for damages should be based on state jurisprudence, not the cultural background of the plaintiffs, and I would have reduced the award.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the objective 'reasonableness' standard required for the justification of deadly force in civil self-defense cases. It establishes that a defendant's subjective, genuine fear is insufficient; the fear must be one that a 'reasonable person of ordinary prudence' would experience under the same circumstances. The decision also reinforces the principle that comparative fault is generally not a defense to an extreme intentional tort, especially when the victim's conduct was non-provocative. This precedent sets a high bar for homeowners claiming self-defense in shootings of individuals who pose no actual, imminent threat.
Unlock the full brief for Hattori v. Peairs