## Facts

- Harold J. Haeussler went to Emil De Loretto, Jr.’s home at about 10:30 p.m. to ask about Haeussler’s missing dog, which often went to De Loretto’s house.
- The dog had previously caused disagreements between the parties’ wives.
- When De Loretto opened the door, the dog ran out from inside the house.
- De Loretto testified Haeussler spoke loudly, angrily told De Loretto not to feed or keep the dog, and waved his hands while appearing flushed and excited.
- De Loretto testified he asked Haeussler to leave several times; Haeussler did not leave and advanced toward him in a threatening manner.
- De Loretto testified he became afraid Haeussler was about to strike him and responded by striking or pushing Haeussler once, then went inside and closed the door.
- Haeussler suffered loosened teeth requiring dental care; police were called but no arrest or criminal proceeding followed.
- After a bench trial on Haeussler’s civil assault and battery claims, the trial court found Haeussler precipitated the argument, advanced threateningly, and failed to prove unlawful force; it found De Loretto used reasonable force in self-defense and to remove Haeussler from the premises.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that De Loretto acted in self-defense rather than committing civil assault and battery.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that De Loretto used no more force than reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for De Loretto.
- The court held that who started the altercation, whether De Loretto reasonably feared imminent harm, and whether the force used was excessive were factual matters for the trier of fact.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the record supported findings that Haeussler was the aggressor, refused to leave when ordered, and advanced threateningly.
- The court concluded a single blow followed by closing the door could be found reasonable defensive force and a reasonable means of removing a threatening trespasser.

## Legal Principles

- Self-defense is a complete defense to civil assault and battery when the defendant reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent bodily injury and uses no more force than reasonably necessary.
- The reasonableness of the defendant’s belief and the amount of force justified under the circumstances are questions for the trier of fact.
- On appeal from a bench trial, the reviewing court accepts supported factual findings and resolves evidentiary conflicts in favor of the judgment under the substantial-evidence standard.
- A plaintiff asserting assault and battery bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant used willful and unlawful force.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense judgment because substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings that the plaintiff precipitated the confrontation, the defendant reasonably feared imminent harm, and the defendant’s single strike constituted reasonable force in self-defense and in ejecting the plaintiff from the premises.


Haeussler v. De Loretto, 109 Cal. App. 2d 363 (Ct. App. 1952)