Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I wonder how it works in a civil case. Like if someone is suing you for damages, does provocation come into play? I know criminal law and civil law often have different thresholds when it comes to culpability. For example, you can be found criminally not guilty yet still be held accountable in a civil suit. I wonder if the opposite can be true. It seems like judges have a little more discretion in civil courts.
If not, I am going to go and antagonize rich people and get paid.
|
In civil suits liability can be apportioned. If someone hits me, even if they were mainly at fault, I can be found 10% liable because I maybe could have swerved or something. But in a battery lawsuit, I doubt provocation would come into it at all. If someone called my sister a name so I took a hammer to their car, that doesn't get me any benefits.
In both civil and criminal you have to differentiate between (a) provocation; (b) self defence and (c) mutual agreement to fight.
Provocation is just defined as words or actions which make you so upset you attack someone. It's never been a defence except that traditionally it could change premeditated murder into manslaughter (and often the "provocation" was ridiculous, like "unwanted homosexual advance"). It's hard to prove because the accused has to prove that a reasonable person would have similarly lost control due to the provocation.
Self-defence (or defence of a third party) is a complete defence to assault or murder. But you have to establish that you genuinely believed you or the person was in danger of imminent physical harm.
Since assault is defined as non-consensual use of force, mutually agreed fights are not assault. The combatants have, by agreeing to fight, consented to being touched. BUT (and this might be relevant here), if the person is no longer capable of giving consent at some point during the fight, that defence can disappear. You can't continue to beat on someone who is down and out, even if it didn't start that way.