I believe you have it backwards. Punitive damages are awarded in a civil case.

OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty in criminal court, but was still sued by the Goldmans for Wrongful Death.

They won in civil court. He won in criminal court.

All cases that wind up resulting in damages being paid are civil actions.

That's not true anymore either.

There have been a couple of cases that have been along those exact lines.

just...that is what I thought too. I couldn't find anything that specifies if it's only in one or the other or both

I wasn't sure if they change where some can sue while committing a crime or if it was case by case or up to the states

I don't remember where the cases took place.

It's a shame that people could EVER be sued in that type of situation.

In many ways, it's much better to simply shoot the criminal dead as long as you don't shoot him in the back. And ya better make sure you shoot to kill because if you only wound him, you'll most likely get sued over it.

I never understood that myself. it is because of these law suits that people don't shoot to wound.

they wouldn't get hurt if they were committing the crime.

just like in the OP...if they fell in a hile and hurt their ankle..should they be able to sue even though they were trespessing and here illegally????

They shouldn't be able to. But thanks to groups like the ( Anyone EXCEPT ) American Civil Liberties Union, they would probably give it a try anyway.

people can sue for anything...win or not. but I would have thought something would have been passed so someone can't sue for being injured while commiting a crime

Everybody calm down. These are important additions to the
"American Experience". Denying them and their families the opportunity to become part of the American Dream is wrong. Denying business's an affordable labor pool is wrong. Upsetting the the large Hispanic voting block is (just silly if you want to win an election) wrong.
Its not about the rule of law, or property rights, or a nation's own sovereignty and right to control its own borders.
It is about money.
You want those fresh fruits and vegetables in your grocery store, and you want them cheap.
Business wants profits by keeping labor costs low.
Politicians want to be elected, and won't risk real immigration control.
Mexico, and other Central American countries wants those workers to send those U.S. dollars back to their county.
That means illegal immigration will continue because it is profitable.

This land is my land, this land is your land, this land is made for you and me.

Now, according to the news, the court said Roger Barnett was liable for $77, 804.00. This is in direct violation of the State’s Constitution. And while I do not blame the jury for this inaccurate decision, I do blame the judge for not instructing the jury properly in Arizona law…

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/18/rancher-cleared-in-rights-case/

Civil rights include those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular protected group or class. Statutes on the state and federal levels have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances, sexual preference.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/civil-rights/

13-407 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises
A.  A person or his agent in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in threatening to use deadly physical force or in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
B.  A person may use deadly physical force under subsection A only in the defense of himself or third persons as described in sections 13‑405 and 13‑406.
C.  In this section, "premises" means any real property and any structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, adapted for both human residence and lodging whether occupied or not.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?LinkType=doc&Title=13