Woodard v. Turnipseed
784 So. 2d 239 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner is not justified in using physical force against a trespasser under a claim of self-defense or defense of property when the trespasser does not pose a reasonable or imminent threat of harm to persons or property.
Facts:
- Kenwyon Woodard, a 17-year-old minor who was 4'9" tall and weighed 95 pounds, worked as a milker for John Turnipseed, a 57-year-old dairy farmer who weighed 145 pounds.
- Turnipseed had previously fired Woodard, at which time Woodard allegedly threatened Turnipseed by saying, 'I will get you for this.'
- On September 7, 1996, Turnipseed fired Woodard a second time for improperly cleaning cows and escorted him off the premises, during which Woodard allegedly repeated his verbal threat.
- Woodard used the farm's telephone to arrange a ride home but was unable to reach anyone.
- Approximately ten minutes later, Turnipseed found Woodard sitting on the bumper of a car on the farm property.
- Turnipseed ordered Woodard to leave, and Woodard replied, 'I am not going anywhere.'
- Turnipseed then picked up a broom, walked eight steps to Woodard, and struck him three times with the broom handle, cracking it on the final blow.
- As a result of the attack, Woodard suffered injuries including a bruised kidney, a hematoma of the right flank, and contusions, which required an eight-hour hospital observation.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenwyon Woodard filed a personal injury complaint against John Turnipseed in the Choctaw County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Turnipseed.
- Woodard filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The trial court denied Woodard's motion.
- Woodard, as Appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a property owner's use of physical force against a non-threatening trespasser justified as a matter of law by a claim of self-defense or defense of property?
Opinions:
Majority - Irving, J.
No. A property owner's use of physical force is not justified where there is no evidence that the owner or his property was in any danger of attack. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Turnipseed, reasonable and fair-minded persons could not conclude that Turnipseed, a 145-pound adult, was in danger of attack from the 95-pound minor, Woodard. Woodard was unarmed, was not near any of the milking operations, and simply remained on the property while waiting for a ride. While Woodard should have left when told, his failure to do so did not justify the 'brutal attack,' especially given his status as a minor with no available transportation. Turnipseed's own testimony that he went back to work after Woodard took a few steps away indicates he did not perceive a genuine, ongoing threat.
Concurring - Southwick, P.J.
No. The concurring opinion agrees that Turnipseed's defense based on an imminent threat to person or property fails as a matter of law. However, the concurrence notes that a separate legal justification exists: a property owner's right to use reasonable, non-deadly force to evict an obstinate trespasser, even without an imminent threat. This defense was not properly presented to the jury, as the jury instruction focused solely on the justification of preventing an 'imminent' attack or intrusion. Because Turnipseed failed to properly raise the defense of a right to evict a trespasser, the judgment on liability in favor of Woodard is correct.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of self-defense and defense of property in tort law, establishing that mere trespassing and verbal threats, without an imminent risk of harm, are insufficient to justify physical violence. The court's decision to reverse and render on liability, taking the question away from the jury, underscores that some actions are so unreasonable that they cannot constitute valid self-defense as a matter of law. The concurrence further refines the analysis by distinguishing the defense against 'imminent harm' from the privilege to use 'reasonable force to evict a trespasser,' highlighting the importance of precise jury instructions aligned with the specific facts and legal theory of a case.
Unlock the full brief for Woodard v. Turnipseed