## Facts

- Paul T. Silas, a professional basketball player and National Guard member training at Fort Jackson, went to Cecil D. Bowen’s parking lot regarding car repairs arranged with a mechanic who was present at the lot but not Bowen’s employee.
- On August 14, 1965, Silas and a fellow serviceman retrieved the car, spent the day drinking beer, then returned after the clutch continued to slip.
- Silas’s party returned to Bowen’s lot in an agitated condition, confronted Bowen, cursed at him, demanded additional repairs, and refused Bowen’s order to leave the premises.
- Bowen, a smaller and older man than Silas, believed Silas’s conduct was aggressive and threatening; testimony indicated Silas physically grabbed Bowen and acted as if he might have a weapon.
- Bowen went into his office, retrieved a shotgun, and returned to confront Silas.
- Bowen fired a shot toward the ground as a warning intended to frighten Silas off the property; the shot struck Silas in the foot, allegedly by ricochet or inadvertence.
- Silas sued Bowen in federal court for damages for assault and battery; Bowen asserted self-defense.

## Issues

1. Whether Bowen’s discharge of a shotgun that injured Silas was legally justified as self-defense under South Carolina law.
2. Whether Silas’s refusal to leave made him a trespasser such that Bowen could use reasonable force to eject and protect himself.
3. Whether firing a “warning shot” with a potentially deadly weapon was unreasonable or excessive force under the circumstances.

## Decision

- After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Bowen.
- The court found Bowen proved self-defense and therefore was not liable for assault and battery.
- The court concluded Bowen reasonably apprehended serious bodily harm based on Silas’s intoxication, aggressiveness, refusal to leave, and the disparity in size and strength.
- The court credited Bowen’s account that he intended a warning shot rather than an intentional shooting, and treated the injury as unintended in relation to that purpose.

## Legal Principles

- Self-defense in civil assault and battery requires an honest and reasonable belief of imminent serious bodily harm and the use of force reasonably necessary for protection.
- A property owner may demand that a person leave private premises; upon refusal, the person may be treated as a trespasser, and reasonable force may be used to protect the owner and effect removal.
- The reasonableness of apprehension and force is evaluated in context, including relative size, aggressiveness, and apparent intoxication.
- A defendant may avoid liability where the defendant reasonably acts to repel or deter an imminent threat, even if the defendant intentionally uses force but unintentionally causes greater injury than intended.

## Conclusion

The court held that Bowen’s discharge of a shotgun as a warning, which accidentally injured Silas, was privileged because Bowen reasonably feared serious bodily harm from an aggressive trespasser and used force the court deemed reasonable for self-protection under the circumstances.


Silas v. Bowen, 277 F. Supp. 314 (D.S.C. 1967)