Matthew Poliak v. James Adcock
Unreported, Filed September 24, 2002 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defenses of self-defense, provocation, and defense of property are not available in a civil assault case where the defendant used disproportionate and deadly force against a plaintiff who posed no imminent threat and who was lawfully on the premises.
Facts:
- James H. Adcock owned a home where his adult daughter, Anna Michelle Adcock-Butler, and her children also resided.
- Ms. Adcock-Butler's boyfriend, Matthew Poliak, was a frequent visitor who later moved his personal effects into the home and began living there.
- Although Adcock was displeased with Poliak's presence, he acquiesced and did not directly protest or ask Poliak to leave after he moved in.
- On July 11, 1998, Adcock decided he wanted Poliak out of the house and armed himself with a piece of two-by-four lumber.
- Adcock entered his daughter's bedroom, where he found Poliak lying alone on the bed.
- As Poliak began to arise from the bed, Adcock, without warning, struck him with the two-by-four, causing severe injuries.
- After striking him, Adcock told Poliak he would kill him if he was still in the house when Adcock returned.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew Poliak sued James H. Adcock for assault and battery in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, a state trial court.
- Adcock answered the complaint, admitting he struck Poliak but asserting the affirmative defenses of self-defense, provocation, and defense of property.
- Poliak filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss Adcock's affirmative defenses as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted Poliak's motion, finding that Adcock had failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his defenses.
- Adcock, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, with Poliak as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the affirmative defenses of self-defense, provocation, or defense of property legally justify a homeowner's admitted assault with a piece of lumber on his daughter's live-in boyfriend, who was lying in bed and posed no immediate threat?
Opinions:
Majority - Koch, J.
No. The affirmative defenses of self-defense, provocation, and defense of property do not legally justify the assault. Self-defense requires a reasonable belief of imminent serious injury, and the force used must be proportionate to the threat. Here, Poliak was lying in bed and took no threatening action; thus, Adcock had no reasonable basis to fear injury, and attacking him with a two-by-four was clearly disproportionate. The defense of provocation, which can mitigate damages, fails because Poliak's mere presence as an unwanted guest is not conduct that would 'heat the blood' of a reasonable person to the point of a violent assault. Finally, the defense of property is inapplicable because Poliak was not a trespasser, as Adcock had acquiesced to his presence, and property owners may never use force that endangers human life or causes serious bodily harm to remove a person. Adcock should have first asked Poliak to leave.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the strict limitations on affirmative defenses to assault, particularly within a domestic context. It establishes that a property owner's frustration or disapproval of a guest does not create a legal justification for resorting to violent self-help. The court's rejection of all three defenses as a matter of law underscores the high threshold for claiming self-defense (requiring an imminent threat), provocation (requiring more than mere presence), and defense of property (forbidding deadly force). This precedent reinforces the principle that verbal requests and legal remedies, not pre-emptive violence, are the appropriate means for removing an unwanted, non-threatening person from a property.
