Slayton v. McDonald
690 So. 2d 914 · Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1997
Facts
A disagreement between two teenagers, James Slayton and Daniel McDonald, escalated from a school bus incident to Slayton, the larger boy, entering McDonald's home uninvited. Despite McDonald's repeated warnings, a 911 call, and McDonald being armed with a shotgun, Slayton continued to advance and threaten McDonald, leading McDonald to shoot Slayton in the knee. Slayton's father sued McDonald's father for damages, but the trial court found Slayton to be the aggressor and McDonald's actions reasonable.
Issue
Did the trial court err in finding that Daniel McDonald's son acted reasonably and was justified in shooting James Slayton in the leg, thereby precluding Slayton's claim for personal injuries?
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court was not clearly wrong in finding Slayton was the aggressor and McDonald's son did not use unreasonable force in repelling the attack.
Rule
Louisiana's aggressor doctrine precludes tort recovery where the plaintiff provokes an altercation, unless the retaliator uses excessive force. The use of a dangerous weapon in self-defense is justifiable if the fear of danger is genuine and founded on facts likely to produce similar emotions in reasonable men, considering factors like the attacker's character, belligerence, size difference, threats, and impossibility of retreat.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.