Lexplug logoLexplug

Wright v. Haffke

Nebraska Supreme Court
188 Neb. 270, 196 N.W.2d 176, 1972 Neb. LEXIS 793 (1972)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A property owner may use reasonable force, including a firearm, to defend their property during the commission of a serious felony such as robbery. The question of whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances is a question of fact for the jury to decide.


Facts:

  • Plaintiff and another individual, Evans, entered the store of the defendant, Arthur F. Haffke, at the same time.
  • Haffke became suspicious of the two men, retrieved a gun, and placed it in his pocket.
  • After the men came to the checkout counter, Haffke opened the cash register.
  • Haffke was then pushed off balance and saw two hands going into the open cash register.
  • As the Plaintiff and Evans turned to flee toward the door, Haffke pulled his gun and fired, striking the Plaintiff in the back.
  • The Plaintiff was approximately 5 to 7 feet from the counter and 3 feet from the door when he was shot.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff sued the defendant, Arthur F. Haffke, in a trial court for personal injuries.
  • The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant.
  • The plaintiff's motions for a directed verdict were overruled by the trial court.
  • The plaintiff, as appellant, perfected an appeal to this court, making the defendant the appellee.

Locked

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 use unreasonable force as a matter of law by using a firearm to stop a person who has committed an assault and is fleeing after taking money from a cash register?


Opinions:

Majority - Spencer, J.

No, the use of a firearm to stop a fleeing felon during a robbery is not unreasonable force as a matter of law; rather, its reasonableness is a question for the jury. A person is not required to docilely submit to robbery and may use force reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of a felony or to arrest a felon after its commission. While the law generally places a higher value on human life than on property rights, the use of a firearm may be justified to stop a serious felony like robbery, which involves an assault and theft. Therefore, it was proper for the jury to determine whether the defendant's instantaneous reaction to shoot the plaintiff, whom he reasonably believed to be a participant in the robbery, constituted a reasonable use of force under the circumstances.



Analysis:

This case affirms the principle that the defense of property can, under certain circumstances, justify the use of deadly force. It crucially distinguishes between minor thefts, where such force is not justified, and serious, violent felonies like robbery, where it may be permissible. The decision heavily emphasizes the role of the jury in determining the reasonableness of the force used, preventing the establishment of a rigid, per se rule against using firearms in such situations. This reinforces that the context of the crime, particularly the presence of assault or violence against the property owner, is a key factor in evaluating the justification for using deadly force.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Wright v. Haffke (1972) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Wright v. Haffke