What is the primary issue in this US tort caase

Poliak v. Adcock

2002 WL 31109737 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J.

This appeal involves a dispute between a father and his adult daughter's live-in boyfriend. The boyfriend filed a personal injury suit against his girlfriend's father in the Circuit Court for Davidson County after the father assaulted him with a piece of two-by-four. The father admitted that he had battered and assaulted his daughter's boyfriend but asserted the defenses of self-defense ... In response to the boyfriend's motion for partial summary judgment, the trial court determined that the father had failed to produce evidence to substantiate any of these defenses. ... We have determined that the trial court was correct when it determined that the father's evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the assault could not, as a matter of law, support his affirmative defenses. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.

OPINION

I.

James M. Adcock and his wife own a house in Nashville. Their adult daughter, Anna Michelle Adcock-Butler, and her two children live with them. Ms. Adcock-Butler's boyfriend, Matthew Poliak was a frequent visitor in the Adcock home. Despite at least one run-in with Mr. Adcock in early 1998, Mr. Poliak moved his clothing and other personal effects into Mr. Adcock's house several months later and apparently began spending significant amounts of time there. Even though Mr. Adcock was not pleased with Mr. Poliak's actions, he never directly opposed or protested Mr. Poliak's presence in his house after Mr. Poliak moved back in.

By mid-1998 Mr. Adcock decided he could not permit Mr. Poliak to live in his house any longer. On the afternoon of July 11, 1998, armed with a piece of two- by-four, Mr. Adcock entered his daughter's bedroom where he found Mr. Poliak lying alone on the bed. As Mr. Poliak began to arise from the bed, Mr. Adcock, without warning, struck him with the two-by four. He told Mr. Poliak that he was going to leave the house for a while and that he would kill Mr. Poliak if he was still there when he returned. Mr. Poliak sustained severe injuries and was taken by ambulance to the hospital.

In July 1999, Mr. Poliak sued Mr. Adcock for assault and battery in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, seeking $150,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages. Mr. Adcock responded by admitting that he had struck Mr. Poliak with a two-by-four. He also asserted that he had been provoked and that he was acting in self-defense because Mr. Poliak was a younger and larger man. After taking Mr. Adcock's discovery deposition, Mr. Poliak moved for a partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Mr. Adcock's affirmative defenses of provocation, self-defense, and protection of property. The trial court granted Mr. Poliak's motion because Mr. Adcock had failed to demonstrate that he would be able to provide material evidence to support his affirmative defenses. Mr. Adcock has now appealed.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standards for reviewing an order granting a summary judgment are well-settled. A summary judgment is proper in virtually any civil case where the moving party demonstrates

that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. [Cc]...

...In this process, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. [Cc]...

III.

MR. ADCOCK'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Mr. Adcock does not dispute that he assaulted Mr. Poliak with a two-by-four. However, he has undertaken to deflect liability for Mr. Poliak's injuries by asserting ... .... self-defense....

Self-defense is a complete defense to a civil action for battery. [C]. Thus, persons who can prove that they were acting in self-defense when they assaulted another person will be absolved from liability for the injuries they may have caused. The elements of the defense are essentially the same in civil and criminal cases. Restatement (Second) of Torts 63 (1965). The defense reflects the principle that persons are entitled to defend themselves when they reasonably believe they are about to be seriously injured. Restatement (Second) of Torts 63, 65 (1965); [C]. However, persons are entitled to use force to defend themselves only as long as the threat of injury continues, [Cc]

The Restatement provides fact-finders with factors for determining whether the amount of force used by a person acting in self-defense was reasonable. These factors include: (1) the amount of force the defender exerted, (2) the means or the object by which the defender applied the force, (3) the manner or method used by the defender to apply the force, and (4) the surrounding circumstances under which the defender applied the force. Restatement (Second) of Torts 70 cmt. b.

According to Mr. Adcock, he and Mr. Poliak had at least one previous confrontation. However, even though Mr. Poliak is the younger and larger man, there is no evidence in the record that Mr. Poliak had ever attempted to intimidate or harm Mr. Adcock. Nonetheless, Mr. Adcock armed himself with a two-by-four and entered the room where Mr. Poliak was sleeping with the settled intention to strike Mr. Poliak over the head to dissuade him from resisting Mr. Adcock's ultimatum to leave his house. When Mr. Adcock entered the room cursing at Mr. Poliak, Mr. Poliak's only actions before Mr. Adcock struck him were to mumble something and to begin to get out of bed. Viewing Mr. Adcock's own testimony in a light most favorable to him, the only conclusions that a reasonable person can draw are that on the afternoon of July 11, 1998, Mr. Adcock had no reasonable basis to fear that Mr. Poliak was about to injure himseriously and that Mr. Adcock's attack on Mr. Poliak was clearly disproportionate to Mr. Poliak's conduct. Accordingly, the trial court correctly held that Mr. Poliak was entitled to a summary judgment striking Mr. Adcock's defense of self-defense because Mr. Adcock had failed to demonstrate that he would be able to substantiate this defense at trial....

We affirm the partial summary judgment foreclosing Mr. Adcock's affirmative defenses as a matter of law and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion...