From Outrage to the Courthouse:
Why Karen & Ken Cases Rarely Survive Summary Judgment
This installment in the series addresses the moment when social outrage collides with legal reality. In North Carolina, many “Karen & Ken” lawsuits—often born from confrontations they helped create—never make it to trial. They end quietly, decisively, and often unexpectedly at summary judgment.
The reason is simple: courts deal in evidence and law, not emotions or entitlement.
What Is Summary Judgment—Plainly Explained
Summary judgment is a procedural checkpoint.
In plain language:
If there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the law clearly favors one side, the judge ends the case before trial.
No jury.
No dramatic testimony.
No “day in court” theatrics.
It exists to prevent courts from being clogged with cases that cannot legally succeed, even if every fact is viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Why Karen & Ken Cases Look Strong—At First
Many of these cases begin with:
High emotion A dramatic narrative Video clips or partial recordings Claims of fear, insult, or indignity
Plaintiffs often frame themselves as victims of:
Assault Emotional distress Excessive force Discrimination or harassment
On paper, these claims can look compelling—until the law is applied.
Where the Cases Collapse
When defendants move for summary judgment, three recurring legal failures emerge.
1. Fighting Words and Provocation Destroy the Narrative
Earlier in this series, we explained that fighting words are not protected speech and often establish provocation.
At summary judgment, courts ask:
Who initiated the confrontation? Who escalated it? Was the plaintiff’s conduct reasonably calculated to provoke a response?
Video, audio, and witness testimony frequently show that:
The Karen or Ken approached first Used aggressive or insulting language Refused to disengage
Once provocation is established, the plaintiff’s claims weaken dramatically.
2. Stand Your Ground Protects Defensive Conduct—Beyond Firearms
Many plaintiffs assume:
“They touched me, so I win.”
But North Carolina’s Stand Your Ground framework protects defensive action, not just the use of firearms.
At summary judgment, judges examine:
Whether the defendant was lawfully present Whether the response was defensive and proportional Whether the defendant was responding to an imminent threat
If the evidence shows the defendant acted to protect themselves or others, especially after provocation, the claim often fails as a matter of law.
3. Contributory Negligence Ends the Case Entirely
This is the final—and often fatal—blow.
North Carolina’s pure contributory negligence doctrine means:
Any contribution by the plaintiff to their own injury bars all recovery.
At summary judgment, courts routinely find that Karen & Ken plaintiffs:
Failed to exercise reasonable care Created foreseeable risk Chose confrontation over disengagement
Once contributory negligence is established—even minimally—the court does not weigh damages.
The case is over.
Why Judges Are Increasingly Unmoved
Judges see patterns.
They recognize:
Manufactured crises Weaponized outrage Lawsuits rooted in entitlement rather than injury
Courts are not persuaded by:
“I felt disrespected” “They shouldn’t have reacted” “I was just asking questions”
What matters is conduct, causation, and law.
The Legal Reality Karen & Ken Plaintiffs Miss
Here is the uncomfortable truth:
Feeling wronged is not the same as being legally right.
When a plaintiff’s own actions:
Provoked the encounter Escalated the situation Contributed to the outcome
No amount of outrage can overcome:
Provocation doctrines Stand Your Ground protections Contributory negligence bars
Summary judgment exists precisely for these cases.
The Broader Lesson
Most Karen & Ken lawsuits fail not because courts are unsympathetic—but because the law rewards restraint, not entitlement.
Had the plaintiff:
Walked away Disengaged Chosen silence over provocation
There would have been:
No confrontation No injury No lawsuit No dismissal
Closing Thought
Outrage may go viral.
But evidence goes to court.
In North Carolina, when confrontation replaces common sense, summary judgment is often the final word.
Next in the series:
“Weaponized Calls and False Authority: When Karen & Ken Conduct Creates Civil and Criminal Exposure.”
This op-ed is for educational and informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
Greensboro Chronicle 
Leave a comment