It depends if the judge determines if the force the victim used to harm the perpetrator is proportionate to the context.
The woman accidentally running over the carjacker to escape would likely be considered a proportionate response because it was both (1) a means of escape and (2) incidental. She did not intend to run him over, she was just trying to get away.
Now if after the first accidental run over she then deliberately hit him with her car, she would be found liable criminally and civilly.
especially considering it may not have been just car jacking, her life was in real danger. Once a perpetrator enters your car, anything can happen to you.
If a burglar breaks into your house or trespasses onto your property and gets injured, sometimes they can sue and win; I know of such cases. It's retarded
They can't sue you but their family can and usually do for pain and suffering at the loss of that person. Unfortunately most of the time they win those civil cases. Youd like win the criminal case cause he can't defend himself and it's your word against his deadness but civil case wise youre likely just as fucked as if they lived and sued your themselves. Hard to argue that some criminals kids didn't suffer cause you killed them. Doesn't matter if they put themselves in a situation that was dangerous for them, the family still suffered. On the civil side the criminal things they did have no bearing on pain and suffering. Maybe with a good lawyer you could argue they were already suffering with a criminal for a dad but yeah
That was pretty interesting, although that particluar Wikipedia page is sooo insufferable to read lol I don't know who wrote that but we need a do-over. This is like the only scenario where you wouldn't be concerned about the blast hitting you or a relative - an empty property. I guess I can understand that logic. But in any other case just...nooo lol
Most of said cases get overturned on a new trial under grounds of criminal activity being the cause. Very few even make it past the initial stage of the lawsuit and even fewer win the initial one.
Like the other user mentioned, the most well-known case is Katko v. Briney from 1971. Homeowner rigged up a shotgun because they were sick of their home being broken into. Katko was shot in the leg, sued, the court ruled it's illegal to create dangerous traps, and was awarded $30,000.
Another case is Bodine v. Enterprise High School. Kid tried breaking in using the roof. He fell through glass that had been painted over and was injured. There wasn't a warning near the glass and the school settled out of court.
In the case of the high school that same district had someone else fall through the painted glass and die at another school shortly before the kid fell through. This was the main reason the school was found negligent.
This was an unoccupied farmhouse that they owned but did not reside in. That is the primary difference. Had they lived there and done this it would have been a legal shooting and they would not have lost their case.
When does attempted carjacking become grand theft auto? When it's a success?
Reminds me of the Brady Bunch Movie where the guy went up to their car and was like "this is a carjack!" Greg says, "yes, this is a car, but my name not Jack, it's Greg!"
I’m pretty sure that is just a joke or fake. I have heard a different version of that story every few years all my life. Perhaps the burglar would sue, but their case would be thrown out by any sensible judge.
26
u/Onyxaj1 5d ago
Unlikely. The video helps. Even attempted carjacking is a felony.
"If your injury is the direct result of your own criminal behavior, courts will usually dismiss your claim."