## Facts

- James Slayton and Daniel McDonald were both minors riding the school bus home when they argued.
- Slayton, the larger boy, threw paper at McDonald; after McDonald threw it back, Slayton threatened to come to McDonald’s house to fight him.
- McDonald told Slayton not to come to his home.
- Later that afternoon, McDonald saw Slayton walking up McDonald’s driveway and yelled for him to go home, but Slayton continued toward the house.
- With no adults present, McDonald went inside, retrieved a 12-gauge shotgun, returned outside, and loaded it within view of Slayton; Slayton still refused to leave.
- McDonald then retreated into the house and called 911 for help.
- While McDonald was still on the phone with the 911 operator, Slayton entered McDonald’s house through a door that was not locked.
- McDonald repeatedly demanded that Slayton leave the house (six times), but Slayton did not leave and dared McDonald to shoot.
- Slayton continued advancing farther into the home; around this time Slayton’s sister arrived at the McDonald residence.
- While still speaking to 911, McDonald fired one shot, striking Slayton in the knee.
- Slayton’s parents incurred more than $43,000 in medical bills.
- Slayton, through his parents, sued McDonald and McDonald’s parents for battery and damages; the trial court ruled for McDonald, and Slayton appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether McDonald’s shooting of Slayton was justified self-defense in a civil battery action when Slayton entered McDonald’s home and advanced despite repeated demands to leave.
2. Whether firing a single shotgun round at Slayton’s knee constituted unreasonable or excessive force under the circumstances.
3. Whether the trial court’s self-defense finding should be disturbed on appeal under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard.

## Decision

- The court of appeal affirmed the judgment for McDonald, rejecting Slayton’s battery-based claims for damages and medical expenses.
- The court agreed that the evidence supported a finding that Slayton was the aggressor and that McDonald reasonably feared imminent bodily harm when Slayton entered and advanced inside the home.
- The court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that one shot, fired after repeated warnings and a 911 call, was not excessive on these facts.
- The court left the trial court’s factual determinations and credibility calls intact under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard.

## Legal Principles

- In Louisiana tort law, a defendant is not liable for battery if he proves he used force in self-defense that was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent imminent harm.
- The reasonableness of the defender’s fear is judged from the circumstances as they appeared to the defender at the time; the threatened harm need not occur if the fear was reasonable.
- Whether defensive force is excessive is a fact-specific inquiry that considers, among other things, the aggressor’s conduct (including refusing to leave), the setting (including an intrusion into the defender’s home), prior threats, relative size/strength, and whether the defender sought help or gave warnings.
- On appeal, the trial court’s findings on self-defense, credibility, and reasonableness are reviewed for manifest error/clearly wrong; if the record supports the trial court’s permissible view of the facts, the appellate court will not reweigh the evidence.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment for McDonald because the record supported that Slayton threatened a fight, came to McDonald’s home anyway, entered the house, ignored repeated orders to leave, and advanced while daring McDonald to shoot, making McDonald’s fear of imminent harm reasonable and the single shot to the knee a justified, non-excessive act of self-defense.


Slayton v. McDonald, 690 So. 2d 914 (1997)