## Facts

- Kenwyon Woodard, a minor, worked as a minimum-wage “milker” at John Turnipseed’s dairy farm in Ackerman, Mississippi.
- Woodard had previously been fired from the same job for allegedly failing to clean cows before milking; Turnipseed claimed Woodard then threatened, “I will get you for this.”
- On September 7, 1996, Turnipseed observed Woodard allegedly pass over several dirty cows and immediately told him, “you are fired, and go punch out.”
- Based on the earlier threat, Turnipseed testified he thought Woodard might vandalize the time clock, so he escorted Woodard to it.
- After punching out, Woodard tried unsuccessfully to telephone his father for a ride home.
- Woodard waited on the premises, sitting in the farm’s parking lot.
- Turnipseed saw Woodard still there, walked over, and told him to leave; Woodard did not move.
- Turnipseed then obtained a broom and struck Woodard three times, causing serious injuries.
- Woodard (through his father and next friend) sued Turnipseed for damages for assault and battery.
- At trial, Turnipseed argued he acted out of fear and that the broom strikes were justified as self-defense and defense of property.
- The jury returned a verdict for Turnipseed; the trial court denied Woodard’s motion for JNOV or, alternatively, a new trial, and Woodard appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Woodard’s motion for a directed verdict/JNOV on liability for assault and battery when the evidence did not legally support Turnipseed’s self-defense or defense-of-property theories.
2. Whether it was error to instruct the jury on self-defense (and related justification concepts) where the proof did not show an imminent threat or other facts necessary to justify striking Woodard with a broom.
3. Whether the defense verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence given Turnipseed’s admitted intentional striking and the circumstances shown at trial.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Mississippi held Woodard’s motion for a directed verdict on liability should have been granted.
- The court reversed the judgment entered on the defense verdict.
- The court rendered judgment for Woodard as to liability for assault and battery.
- The case was remanded for a new trial limited to the amount of damages.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict/JNOV is proper when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, reasonable jurors could reach only one result on the challenged element.
- Civil self-defense requires a reasonable belief of imminent danger of harm; prior threats or generalized fear, without an immediate threatening act, are not enough.
- Even when some right of self-protection or property protection exists, the force used must be reasonable and no more than what reasonably appears necessary under the circumstances.
- Defense of property may allow reasonable force to protect property or remove a person from the premises, but it does not justify beating someone based on speculation about possible future misconduct.
- A jury should not be instructed on a justification theory unless there is evidence that would allow a reasonable juror to find each required element of that defense.

## Conclusion

Because Turnipseed intentionally struck Woodard with a broom after Woodard remained seated in the parking lot and the record did not show an imminent threat or other facts that could legally justify the blows as self-defense or defense of property, the appellate court reversed the defense verdict, rendered liability for Woodard as a matter of law, and remanded for a new trial on damages only.


Woodard v. Turnipseed, 784 So. 2d 239 (2000)