Defenses against intentional torts. Consent: if the plaintiff gave consent for the action to be taken, self-defense, defense of third parties, defense of property, recovery of converted assets, privilege of public need: acting to protect the interests of the public. The most common defenses against intentional torts are consent and self-defense. Sometimes additional defenses are also available on behalf of others and the defense of property, as are defenses of public and private necessity.
Consent is a defense for the defendant, but it can also be an element that the plaintiff must overcome when alleging whether the facts tend to suggest that the plaintiff consented to physical contact (which would prevent aggression) or to entry to land (which would prevent illegal entry). If a person gives consent to something and the contact or ground entry exceeds the scope of consent, liability may arise. Often, the difficult questions concern the extent of the consent given and whether or not it was given. Assuming that consent has been expressed, its validity will be the last question to consider.
Any consent given due to fraud, error, coercion, or incapacity will make the consent invalid. Intentional torts are harder to prove than allegations of negligence, since proving someone else's intent can be difficult. When a defendant is accused of committing intentional tort, the two most commonly used defenses are consent and self-defense. A defendant may argue that they are not guilty of intentional tort because the plaintiff consented to the actions that led to the allegations.
The defendant can also argue that his actions were not illegal but were in self-defense to protect himself from the plaintiff. When it comes to the argument of self-defense, the law prohibits the use of lethal force when the other party's actions do not pose an imminent or inevitable danger. Defenses against intentional torts will be discussed later in the lesson. Lack of intent is a common defense against intentional torts.
While the defendant may have committed the act or acts in question, this strategy holds that the harm caused to the plaintiff as a result of those actions was not intentional. Without intent, the defendant is guilty of negligence, at best. Another common defense strategy is to seek the complainant's consent. Once again, the defendant accepts responsibility for the action, but claims that the plaintiff gave consent for the action to take place.
Consent by the plaintiff can mitigate or diminish the defendant's culpability. Self-defense is another popular defense against intentional torts. The defendant may argue that his actions were taken in an effort to defend himself, another person, or his property. In this defense, self-defense measures must be within the parameters of reasonable force.
The law defines reasonable force as that necessary to defend oneself or one's property. If the self-defense measures were appropriate for the intended harm, it can be determined that the defendant acted within his legal rights. Finally, a defendant of intentional tort may use the defense of public need. In a situation where a person is facing a crisis or emergency situation, that person may choose to act in a way that avoids a major disaster.
As a result, someone else's personal property may be damaged. In this scenario, the courts would analyze all the facts and circumstances to determine if the defendant acted out of public necessity. The following are some examples of legal defenses against intentional tort:. When a person is accused of intentional tort, several defense strategies are used.
The defense for lack of intent maintains that, while the defendant may have committed the acts in question, he did not intend to cause harm. The defense by consent holds that the other party gave the defendant some type of consent that allowed the action to take place. Consent can be given in the form of an oral agreement, the acceptance of an offer, or simply allowing behavior to occur. Self-defense is another common non-contractual defense.
For a defendant to be able to plead self-defense, the action taken must have been proportional to the intended harm. The law requires that reasonable force be used, or only the amount of force necessary to protect oneself, one's own property, or another person, in self-defense. Home raids in which the landlord kills an intruder are examples of legal self-defense. Finally, the defense out of public necessity maintains that, although the defendant committed the act in question, he did so in an effort to prevent a public disaster.
Intentional torts are lawsuits for personal injury or destruction of property that involve the deliberate or intentional misconduct of an abuser toward another person. If the original aggressor has retreated, for example, the person who wishes to benefit from self-defense cannot attack the person by stabbing them in the back or throwing a gun in their direction; their supposed need for protection has disappeared with the removal of the aggressor. After several years of working for criminal defense and entertainment law firms, he enrolled in law school. Intentional torts are lawsuits for personal injury or property damage committed by one person against another.
When a person accused of murder seeks to justify himself on the basis of threats to his own life, he may be allowed to present evidence of the threats made, but this will not be considered to constitute a justification of the crime, unless it is demonstrated that, at the time of the homicide, the person killed by an act carried out then expressed his intention to carry out the threats thus made. A qualified personal injury attorney will be able to determine if defenses are available for your case, can provide you with advice about the rights or protections you may have as a defendant, and can represent you on your behalf in a court of law. .