## Facts

- James Adcock owned a house in Nashville with his wife.
- Adcock’s adult daughter, Anna Adcock-Butler, lived there with her two children.
- Anna’s boyfriend, Matthew Poliak, moved into the home in 1998 to live with Anna.
- Poliak and Adcock had at least one prior run-in, but Adcock never directly told Poliak he could not live in the home.
- Poliak was younger and larger than Adcock, but Poliak never tried to intimidate or harm Adcock.
- One afternoon, Adcock decided he could no longer allow Poliak to live in the home.
- Adcock picked up a two-by-four piece of wood and went into Anna’s bedroom.
- Poliak was asleep on the bed; Adcock woke him by cursing at him.
- Poliak mumbled something and started to get out of bed.
- Adcock struck Poliak with the two-by-four.
- Adcock told Poliak he was leaving the house for a little while and said he would kill Poliak if Poliak was still there when Adcock returned.
- Poliak suffered severe injuries and was taken by ambulance to the hospital.
- Poliak sued Adcock for assault and battery, seeking $150,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages.
- Adcock admitted striking Poliak but asserted self-defense.
- After Adcock’s deposition, Poliak moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the self-defense defense.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment on the defense, and Adcock appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment dismissing Adcock’s affirmative defense of self-defense where, even under Adcock’s account, the record showed no reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm when he struck Poliak.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment dismissing Adcock’s self-defense defense.
- Even taking Adcock’s version of events as true for summary judgment purposes, the proof did not create a triable question that Adcock reasonably feared imminent bodily harm when he hit Poliak with the two-by-four.
- Because the defense failed as a matter of law on the “imminent threat” and “reasonable force” components, Adcock could not present self-defense to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, the court considers whether the record shows any genuine dispute of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- A defendant who relies on an affirmative defense must point to evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to find each element of that defense.
- Civil self-defense requires (1) a reasonable belief of imminent danger of bodily harm and (2) force that is reasonably necessary in response to that danger.
- A generalized fear, irritation, or desire to remove someone from a home does not amount to an imminent threat justifying a preemptive strike.
- Striking a person who is asleep or just waking, without proof of a threatened attack, does not support a reasonable inference of immediate danger.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed partial summary judgment for Poliak on Adcock’s self-defense defense because, even crediting Adcock’s own testimony, Adcock hit Poliak with a two-by-four after waking him from sleep without facts showing an imminent threat of bodily harm or a need for such force.


Poliak v. Adcock, 2002 WL 31109737 (2002)