> If two burglars, A and B, agree to open a safe by means of explosives, and A so negligently handles the explosive charge as to injure B, B might find some difficulty in maintaining an action for negligence against A.
IANAL but your interpretation of this principle cannot be correct, since that would imply that a cop could never be sued for using excessive force against a criminal.
Since they waited an astonishing three years to bring this lawsuit I can only think this is politically motivated and they hope to make it an issue in the upcoming elections. A cause célèbre.
This is just a bit of red meat thrown out to rile up the ultra right. She died a traitor’s death and her family has no business to try to make money off of her treachery.
Not only is it red meat, it’s also an attempt at getting the US Air Force to “admit their mistake” in denying that traitor a military funeral. And the Air Force did not make a mistake, so their continued denial i more chum for the scum who support Trump.
A cop charged with guarding Congress was confronting a mob breaking down the doors with nothing more than a handgun. People in the mob noticed the gun and were shouting the cop had a gun. The cop shouted back that he would shoot anyone coming through the door. Babbitt who, I dunno, maybe thought she had Plot Armor, started to climb through the hole in the door. The cop fired one shot. Just one, unlike some recent incidents where cops unloaded entire magazines on someone. Seems to me the cop used exactly the force required to stop the advancing mob and no more.
(The above is based on raw video from a person in the mob shooting said video - the version I saw was completely unedited, including showing spurting blood and everything.)
I don’t see excessive force there. If someone has a gun and says “if you come through that door I’ll shoot you” and you go through that door you are are stupid. Not a victim. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I don’t think that was the point. I believe the point was that if you can’t sue someone for an injury caused during the commission of a crime, then for example a person couldn’t sue a cop if that cop caused an injury due to use of excessive force in response to a crime, but those lawsuits do happen in the US.
It wasn’t saying that this was a case where that happened.
It’s worth noting that the article you linked to is about a principle of law in the United Kingdom.
I am also not a lawyer but just Googling whether you can sue if injured while committing a crime brings up web sites for legal firms where they suggest that in the US you can.
Let them. I welcome this lawsuit, because I’m as near to certain as I can be that this will be yet another massive, public slap-down of MAGA stupidity. A clear ruling that this shooting was justified because she was, literally, physically leading an attack on Congress would be a gift to the anti-MAGA forces.
Ashli Babbitt isn’t suing. She’s dead. The family is suing for damages suffered by them as a result of Ashli no longer being among them. That doesn’t sound likely to be successful, but I don’t think that principle applies here, since the family members aren’t (AFAIK) accused of being at the Capitol.
Did she have insurance and did her family try to collect on that first? If not, why not if they thought that she was a victum of an illegal shooting? Wait, I’ll tell you . . . it’s becasue insurance doesn’t cover people who are in injured in the act of commiting a crime and they know it.
contributory negligence* is a defense to a tort claim based on negligence. If it is available, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.[1]
Because the contributory negligence doctrine can lead to harsh results, many common law jurisdictions have abolished it in favor of a “comparative fault” or “comparative negligence” approach.[1] A comparative negligence approach reduces the plaintiff’s damages award by the percentage of fault the fact-finder assigns to the plaintiff for their own injury.[2] For example, if a jury thinks the plaintiff is 30% at fault, the plaintiff’s damages award will be reduced by 30%.
This looks like a slamdunk defense of contributory negligence.
But I’m still pretty sure that legal principle cannot be correct as stated. Suppose a hypothetical victim of hypothetical police misconduct is still alive, surely the fact they were committing a crime when the police committed a worse crime that seriously harmed them doesn’t prohibit a civil lawsuit?
(For the avoidance of doubt, I’m just trying to understand the legal principle here, not remotely suggesting that in this case there was any misconduct on the part of the agent who killed Babbitt.)
I haven’t looked at the jurisdiction where this was filed, but it’s almost certain that contributory negligence is not a complete defense barring recovery.
If we set politics aside (since 90% of analysis about the Babbitt shooting is usually “It’s okay when my side does it, but not when they do it,”) then, as someone pointed out above, this all comes down to whether a cop shooting an unarmed (but doing illegal-things) person is justified. If we apply this logic to other situations, then it should be fair game for cops to open fire on all kinds of crooks who may not be carrying a weapon but nonetheless are still committing crimes and are advancing towards the cop and may use their bare hands to attack.
I bow to your judgment as a real lawyer. But I find it hard to believe that any rational jury could watch the video of her shooting, in the context of that day, and find her anything but 100 percent at fault.
In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the suit doesn’t make it past summary judgment.
