Patterson v. Kuntz
1946 La. App. LEXIS 545, 28 So. 2d 278 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of deadly force against a trespasser is justified when a person's fear of danger is genuine and founded on facts that would likely produce similar emotions in a person of reasonable prudence. A prolonged history of menacing intrusions can be sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a trespasser intends to inflict serious bodily harm, even if an attack is not actively in progress.
Facts:
- For over a year, Warren E. Kuntz and his family were subjected to repeated nocturnal intrusions by a prowler at their New Orleans residence.
- These intrusions included finding footprints near the bedroom windows of Kuntz's wife and daughter and a chair placed to facilitate peeping.
- The incidents caused Kuntz's wife and daughter extreme fear and nervous strain, prompting them to seek police assistance on numerous occasions without success.
- Police advised Kuntz that the intruder was likely a 'sex pervert' and that he should obtain a gun to protect his family.
- The night before the shooting, Kuntz's wife was terrified when she saw a man's face peering into her bedroom window.
- On October 24, 1943, Kuntz, waiting in his darkened living room, saw 15-year-old Robert Patterson walking in his driveway towards his wife's bedroom window.
- Believing Patterson was the prowler and intending to harm his family, Kuntz claimed he yelled a warning to halt.
- When Patterson allegedly continued to advance, Kuntz fired three shots, severely wounding him.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, on behalf of his minor son, filed suit against the defendant, Warren E. Kuntz, in the District Court (a trial court) to recover damages for personal injuries.
- Following a trial, the District Court rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant, Kuntz.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
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 property owner act with legal justification, and is therefore not civilly liable, when using deadly force against a trespasser if, based on a history of prior intrusions, the owner reasonably believes the trespasser poses a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm to his family?
Opinions:
Majority - Unspecified
Yes. A property owner acts with legal justification when using deadly force if they have a reasonable apprehension of danger, even if mistaken. The court found that the central issue was not the actual intent of the trespasser, but whether Kuntz, as a reasonably prudent man, had good cause to believe his family was in danger of bodily harm. Given the year-long history of incessant and frightening intrusions, the failure of police to apprehend the prowler, and the police's own advice to arm himself, Kuntz's fear was deemed genuine and reasonable. The court held that Kuntz was not required to wait for the intruder to make an overt attack before acting to protect his family, as the persistent invasions were sufficient to create a reasonable belief that an attack would ultimately occur.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'reasonable belief' standard for using deadly force in defense of others against a non-felonious trespasser. It establishes that a cumulative history of non-violent but menacing intrusions can be legally sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension of future serious bodily harm, thereby justifying the use of deadly force. The decision shifts the legal focus from the trespasser's immediate actions to the property owner's state of mind, provided that state of mind is objectively reasonable based on prior events. This precedent significantly strengthens the legal justification for homeowners to act preemptively under circumstances of prolonged harassment and fear.
Unlock the full brief for Patterson v. Kuntz