## Facts

- Edmund P. Hagopian and Frederick W. Fuchs, Jr. were dairy farmers in New Jersey.
- Hagopian was a member of a dairy farmers’ guild that had been withholding milk deliveries to obtain higher prices; an injunction ended the withholding on February 28, 1957.
- Three days earlier, Fuchs was intercepted and attacked by striking guild members while attempting to deliver milk.
- On February 28, Fuchs arranged to deliver milk (including milk from other farmers), notified state police of his route, and had another farmer follow him due to fear of further strike-related trouble.
- While driving on Route 46, Fuchs saw Hagopian’s car, believed it turned around to follow him, and accelerated.
- At a gasoline service station, both men stopped; Hagopian approached, claiming he intended to persuade Fuchs to join the guild.
- During the encounter, Fuchs threw a steel wedge that struck Hagopian in the head.
- Fuchs claimed he acted in self-defense due to fear of imminent attack; on cross-examination, he admitted Hagopian was about four to six feet away with his back turned, and that Fuchs aimed at Hagopian’s head.

## Issues

1. In a civil assault and battery action, does the defendant bear the burden to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence once an intentional battery is shown?
2. Must the defendant’s asserted belief in the necessity of force be judged by an objective “reasonably prudent person” standard, rather than the defendant’s subjective fear alone?
3. Did the trial court’s jury instructions misstate or inadequately explain these requirements, requiring a new trial?

## Decision

- The judgment for the defendant (no cause of action) was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.
- Self-defense in a civil battery case is an affirmative defense; the defendant bears the burden of proving justification by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
- The jury must be instructed that the defendant’s apprehension of danger must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances, not merely sincerely held.
- The trial court’s charge failed to clearly place the burden on the defendant and failed to adequately instruct on the objective reasonableness requirement, constituting reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- After a plaintiff establishes a prima facie intentional battery, the defendant has the burden of producing and persuading the factfinder on justification or excuse such as self-defense.
- Self-defense requires both (a) an actual belief in imminent danger of bodily harm and (b) circumstances that would cause a reasonably prudent person in the same position to share that belief.
- Even where some defensive force is justified, the force used must be proportionate and no more than reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
- Erroneous or unclear jury instructions on the burden of proof and the objective standard for self-defense in a civil battery action warrant reversal and a new trial when properly preserved.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed that self-defense is an affirmative defense the defendant must prove and that the claimed fear of imminent harm must satisfy an objective reasonable-person standard.


Hagopian v. Fuchs, 66 N.J. Super. 374, 169 A.2d 172 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1961)