Alberta man sued by trespasser who was hit with a ricocheted bullet files counterclaim

[PhillipBlunt]

Alberta man sued by trespasser who was hit with a ricocheted bullet files counterclaim

 

Tyler Dawson

17 hrs ago

 

EDMONTON — Edouard Maurice, the Okotoks man being sued by a trespasser who was hit with a ricocheted bullet that was fired to scare off burglars, has filed court documents denying his responsibility for the man’s injuries.

 

In turn, Maurice has filed a counterclaim, saying the mental anguish and trauma of the incident has harmed his family.

The document, filed in a Calgary court on Tuesday, comes roughly a month after Ryan Watson filed a lawsuit against Maurice, claiming post-traumatic stress disorder and lingering pain from the .22-calibre bullet that hit him in the arm.

 

“Mr. Maurice suffered from mental distress, anxiety, nightmares and a fear of repetition,” says the counterclaim. “Given that he lives in a rural community, he continues to worry for the safety of his wife and two infant daughters.”

 

The court documents say his family has suffered from anxiety and fear; and that his wife, Jessica, suffered a miscarriage following the events of that night.

 

In addition, the court documents Maurice filed, suing Watson for $150,000, says that they lost four months of “potential profits” from a planned expansion of a dog daycare that Jessica Maurice operates in Okotoks and Edouard Maurice says he missed work as a machinist because of the mental anguish and needing to attend court. The Maurices declined to speak further about the suit on Tuesday.

 

The lawsuit against Maurice, filed and first reported by the National Post last month, spurred a huge outpouring of support for the family. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney donated money to the legal fund, saying it was “a sign of personal compassion,” and that fundraiser has surpassed $50,000.

 

The lawsuit dates back to the early hours of Maurice’s birthday in February 2018, when he was at home just outside of Okotoks, Alta., alone with one of his children. Maurice heard dogs barking and noise from the yard. He looked outside and saw people rummaging through his vehicles.

 

“Mr. Maurice was worried that they would enter his home and harm his baby daughter,” says the statement of defence.

He retrieved his rifle, which previous court documents identified as a .22-calibre, and went outside, demanding the people leave his property.

When they did not, he fired a warning shot into the ground in front of the vehicles, the court documents say. The trespassers, who were inside the vehicles at the time, did not leave, according to the statement of defence. He fired a second warning shot — this time in between the two separate vehicles the two burglars were in — the court documents say. It was at that point the two fled.

 

In his $100,000 suit against Maurice, Watson alleges this warning shot was negligent, with no lookout, no “reasonable consideration” for Watson being in the yard. The suit also alleges there was no “reasonable threat” of imminent harm when Maurice fired the rifle and that he failed to exercise other options before firing the gun, among other allegations. The Post reached out for comment to Nelson & Nelson, the Calgary firm representing Watson, but did not hear back by press time.

 

Maurice’s statement of defence disputes Watson’s claims, saying he should have known he wasn’t allowed to rifle through two vehicles; that Maurice owed no duty of care to Watson; but that if he did, he responded reasonably to an “imminent threat”; that the verbal warning fulfilled any duty of care; the warning shots were a “reasonable distance” from the trespassers and were fired into the ground; among other arguments. The defence asks that the case be dismissed.

 

Watson’s court filings say he required surgery to put a metal plate in his arm and that he now suffers from PTSD and other discomfort. He was sentenced to 45 days in jail in February 2019, for his actions that evening, but walked free because of the time he had already served.

Maurice was later arrested; police, whom Maurice had called to his house, arrived with guns drawn and slapped him in cuffs, taking him off to the station. He was later arrested and charged with careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and aggravated assault, though those charges were withdrawn by the Crown in June 2018, as they said they wouldn’t be able to secure a conviction.

 

The case caused outrage in rural Alberta, where steadily rising crime in sparsely populated areas, and the belief the RCMP is unable to keep residents safe from criminals, has led to anger that, should someone use a weapon to defend their property or family, they’re at risk of criminal charges or a civil suit.

 

While Edouard and his wife Jessica always knew that they could face a civil suit, they were still stunned when notice of it arrived in late September.

“It’s been exhausting from the start; the exhaustion didn’t really end when the charges against Eddie were withdrawn, as laid out in the countersuit,” Jessica Maurice told the Post Tuesday evening. “But it’s a fight worth fighting, and we aren’t going to back down.”

 

None of the allegations in either court filing have been tested in court.

 

Personally, I think it's appalling that people can sue homeowners for defending themselves.

 

There is a huge amount of whitespace underneath here for some reason and I can't delete it, so please forgive the massive empty gap below this sentence.

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by PhillipBlunt

[ForsbergTheGreat]

What’s a person supposed to do if they can’t defend themselves and their family. The idea that the RCMP will do that in every situation is ridiculous, where in many cases there response time is 30-60 min for rural locations.
 

That’s not a knock on our hard working police force, just a fact that budget and resources doesn’t allow them to be present in every location, at every hour. You should have the right to defend your home and your family. 

[JM_]

guns don't sue people, people sue people 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

What’s a person supposed to do if they can’t defend themselves and their family. The idea that the RCMP will do that in every situation is ridiculous, where in many cases there response time is 30-60 min for rural locations.
 

That’s not a knock on our hard working police force, just a fact that budget and resources doesn’t allow them to be present in every location, at every hour. You should have the right to defend your home and your family. 

A bit of a grey area (course I’m no legal expert) in that the perps weren’t inside his house or heading towards his house at the time but in his yard...though Maurice didn’t fire directly at the perps either.  Lawyers  will be the ones that win this no matter what the outcome.

[RonMexico]

Sad that his only recourse is to counter sue because of a broken system that allowed a criminal to claim damages.

 

Even sadder is that I bet as a result of the BS that this case has brought on the Maurice family, that more rural land owners will just kill any trespassers rather than have this happen to them.

[Tre Mac]

Ug, this angers me.  I hope the family wins the counter suit and can carry on with their lives. 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, RonMexico said:

Sad that his only recourse is to counter sue because of a broken system that allowed a criminal to claim damages.

 

Even sadder is that I bet as a result of the BS that this case has brought on the Maurice family, that more rural land owners will just kill any trespassers rather than have this happen to them.

the system isn't great thats true. But if this goes the distance and the criminals claims aren't successful he can be ordered to pay the Maurice's legal bills. So there's that at least. If it looks like the claims are bs during discovery it probably gets dropped. 

 

The fact is he misused a firearm. All of us may have done the same thing in his shoes. Maybe we need to have a real discussion in Canada around expanding the rules around protecting your home but we're not going to accomplish that with angry outbursts. It needs a level-headed review of what the outcomes may be. Do we want people to have the ability to shoot someone for property crimes? is feeling threatened enough justification to kill someone? some US states think so. 

[Nucker 67]

This isn't the US, we don't shoot people because they come on our lawn

[bishopshodan]

Unfortunate.

One should be able to defend their home.

 

I think before you grab the gun though....

 

 

 

 

 

[189lb enforcers?]

.

Edited October 9, 2019 by 189lb enforcers?

[189lb enforcers?]

Big Brother is watching your comments

[ForsbergTheGreat]

12 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

A bit of a grey area (course I’m no legal expert) in that the perps weren’t inside his house or heading towards his house at the time but in his yard...though Maurice didn’t fire directly at the perps either.  Lawyers  will be the ones that win this no matter what the outcome.

It’s definitely grey but he should also have the right to defend his property. Realistically we’re sending a bad message that any criminal can come into your yard, steal or damage your property and outside of calling the police there’s nothing else you can do. Might as pull up a chair and yell words of encouragement. 
 

rural crime has drastically risen over the last 5 years. And it’s not shocking to see why. Easy targets which no means of protection.  

[luckylager]

14 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Unfortunate.

One should be able to defend their home.

 

I think before you grab the gun though....

 

 

 

 

 

It's interesting that the article states he heard his dogs barking... farm dogs don't just bark in my experience. 

 

I think both parties should have to live with the decisions they made - Maurice should do some community service and redo his PAL training, also get some new dogs with bite. Watson should deal with the fact his arm is going to hurt forever because he's a &^@#ing scumbag and his lingering pain and mental anguish is caused by his own scummy nature.

 

 

[Tre Mac]

23 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

Unfortunate.

One should be able to defend their home.

 

I think before you grab the gun though....

 

 

 

 

 

Hounds that shoot bees out of their mouths are far more lethal than any firearm, a robotic Richard Simmons on the other hand...

[Alflives]

30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the system isn't great thats true. But if this goes the distance and the criminals claims aren't successful he can be ordered to pay the Maurice's legal bills. So there's that at least. If it looks like the claims are bs during discovery it probably gets dropped. 

 

The fact is he misused a firearm. All of us may have done the same thing in his shoes. Maybe we need to have a real discussion in Canada around expanding the rules around protecting your home but we're not going to accomplish that with angry outbursts. It needs a level-headed review of what the outcomes may be. Do we want people to have the ability to shoot someone for property crimes? is feeling threatened enough justification to kill someone? some US states think so. 

Jimmy, the criminal steals to make his money.  How is he ever going to pay the costs of a civil trial and 50,000 dollars?  The home owner actually works and has a home of value. Too bad the home owner didn't have an AR 15 and kill the four thieves.  Four less losers to steal money from the hard working people.  

The laws in Canada are way out of whack.  

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Jimmy, the criminal steals to make his money.  How is he ever going to pay the costs of a civil trial and 50,000 dollars?  The home owner actually works and has a home of value. Too bad the home owner didn't have an AR 15 and kill the four thieves.  Four less losers to steal money from the hard working people.  

The laws in Canada are way out of whack.  

I'm not defending the criminal Alf.

 

I'm asking what the boundaries should be. Its easy to get your buttons pushed and be outraged at these stories, but what do you really want people to be able to do? You may want Texas rules, but before we do that lets make the decision with cool heads so we know what we're getting in to. 

[HerrDrFunk]

6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Jimmy, the criminal steals to make his money.  How is he ever going to pay the costs of a civil trial and 50,000 dollars?  The home owner actually works and has a home of value. Too bad the home owner didn't have an AR 15 and kill the four thieves.  Four less losers to steal money from the hard working people.  

The laws in Canada are way out of whack.  

I believe killing someone for a property crime is the pendulum swinging too far the other way. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by HerrDrFunk

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I believe killing someone for a property crime is the pendulum swinging too far the other way. 

Will these four criminals only commit theft?  If confronted while stealing will they act violently?  Just cull the heard.    

[Alflives]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm not defending the criminal Alf.

 

I'm asking what the boundaries should be. Its easy to get your buttons pushed and be outraged at these stories, but what do you really want people to be able to do? You may want Texas rules, but before we do that lets make the decision with cool heads so we know what we're getting in to. 

It's pretty clear to me, and (IMO) a lot of Canadians.  If people are on your property and stealing (or worse) you should be fully within your rights to shoot and kill those criminals.  To suggest that people committing criminal acts (like in this case) will not escalate from stealing to violence is assuming we know what the criminals are thinking.  A victim of crime should not have to make that judgement.  Shoot first, and ask questions later.  

[HerrDrFunk]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Will these four criminals only commit theft?  If confronted while stealing will they act violently?  Just cull the heard.    

Alf, we know the answer to those questions in this particular instance: yes, no. 

 

Let me put it this way: let's say Mrs. Alf was shopping and forgot to pay for an item; completely innocuously. Should the shop keep be allowed to pump her full of buckshot over shoplifting?