🤕Torts Unit 3 – Defenses to Intentional Torts

Key Concepts

• Defenses to intentional torts provide legal justifications or excuses for otherwise tortious conduct
• Burden of proof typically falls on the defendant to establish the elements of their defense
• Defenses can be categorized as complete defenses, which fully absolve the defendant of liability, or partial defenses, which may mitigate damages
• Successful assertion of a defense does not negate the existence of a tort but rather provides a legal reason for the defendant's actions
• Defenses are grounded in public policy considerations, such as the protection of individual rights, the prevention of harm, and the promotion of social utility
• Availability and applicability of defenses may vary depending on the specific tort alleged and the jurisdiction in which the case is brought
• Defenses often involve a balancing of the parties' interests and a consideration of the circumstances surrounding the tortious conduct

Types of Defenses

• Consent, which can be express or implied, negates the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct
• Self-defense and defense of others justify the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or another from imminent harm
• Necessity and duress excuse tortious conduct that is committed to prevent a greater harm or under the compulsion of an unlawful threat
• Privilege and immunity provide legal protections for certain actors, such as law enforcement officers or government officials, in the performance of their duties
• Statute of limitations bars claims that are brought after a specified period following the tortious conduct
• Other defenses may include contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and comparative fault, which focus on the plaintiff's conduct and its impact on liability
• Some jurisdictions recognize additional defenses, such as the shopkeeper's privilege or the defense of property, which apply in specific contexts

Consent

• Consent is a complete defense to intentional torts, as it negates the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct
• Consent can be express, such as through a written agreement or verbal permission, or implied, such as through the plaintiff's conduct or the circumstances of the situation
• Consent must be freely given, without duress, fraud, or incapacity, and must be specific to the conduct in question
  • For example, consent to a medical procedure does not necessarily imply consent to all related procedures or risks
• Consent can be limited in scope or revoked at any time, and the defendant must respect these boundaries
• In some cases, such as those involving minors or individuals with mental incapacity, the ability to give valid consent may be restricted
• The defense of consent is not available in situations where the conduct at issue is prohibited by law or public policy, such as in cases of criminal assault or battery

Self-Defense and Defense of Others

• Self-defense justifies the use of reasonable force to protect oneself from imminent, unlawful harm
  • The force used must be proportional to the threat faced and must cease when the threat is neutralized
• Defense of others allows for the use of reasonable force to protect another person from imminent, unlawful harm
  • The defendant must have a reasonable belief that the third party is facing an imminent threat and that intervention is necessary
• In both cases, the defendant must not be the initial aggressor and must have a reasonable belief that the use of force is necessary
• The defense may not apply if the defendant uses excessive force or continues to use force after the threat has been neutralized
• Some jurisdictions impose a duty to retreat before using force, while others recognize the "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws, which may modify the requirements for asserting the defense

Necessity and Duress

• Necessity is a defense that excuses tortious conduct committed to prevent a greater harm
  • The defendant must face an imminent threat of significant harm and must have no reasonable alternative to the tortious conduct
• Duress is a defense that excuses tortious conduct committed under the compulsion of an unlawful threat
  • The threat must be of death or serious bodily harm, and the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the threat will be carried out
• In both cases, the defendant's conduct must be proportional to the harm avoided or the threat faced
• The defenses of necessity and duress are not available if the defendant created the situation leading to the tortious conduct or had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the harm or threat
• These defenses are typically limited in scope and are subject to public policy considerations, such as the need to deter criminal conduct or protect individual rights

Privilege and Immunity

• Privilege provides legal protection for certain actors, such as law enforcement officers or government officials, in the performance of their duties
  • The privilege must be exercised in good faith and within the scope of the actor's authority
• Immunity shields certain individuals or entities from liability based on their status or the nature of their conduct
  • Examples include sovereign immunity for government entities, diplomatic immunity for foreign officials, and judicial immunity for judges acting in their official capacity
• Privileges and immunities are grounded in public policy considerations, such as the need to ensure the effective functioning of government or the protection of individual rights
• The scope and applicability of privileges and immunities may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific context in which they are asserted
• In some cases, privileges and immunities may be qualified or limited, and their assertion may be subject to procedural requirements or exceptions

Statute of Limitations

• The statute of limitations is a defense that bars claims brought after a specified period following the tortious conduct
  • The length of the limitations period varies depending on the type of tort and the jurisdiction
• The purpose of the statute of limitations is to promote fairness, prevent stale claims, and provide closure to potential defendants
• The limitations period typically begins to run when the tortious conduct occurs or when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury
• In some cases, the limitations period may be tolled, or paused, due to factors such as the plaintiff's minority, the defendant's absence from the jurisdiction, or the plaintiff's mental incapacity
• The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, meaning that the defendant must raise it in a timely manner, or it may be waived
• If the statute of limitations has expired, the plaintiff's claim will be barred, regardless of its merits

Case Studies and Examples

• In the case of Katko v. Briney, the court held that the use of deadly force in defense of property was not justified when the property owner set up a spring-loaded shotgun in an abandoned farmhouse to prevent theft
  • This case illustrates the limits of the defense of property and the need for proportionality in the use of force
• The case of Courvoisier v. Raymond demonstrates the principles of self-defense, as the court found that the defendant, a police officer, was justified in shooting the plaintiff, who was armed and advancing toward him in a threatening manner
  • The court emphasized the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances in evaluating the reasonableness of the defendant's actions
• In the case of Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co., the court applied the defense of necessity to excuse the defendant's trespass on the plaintiff's dock during a severe storm
  • The court held that the defendant's actions were justified to prevent greater harm to the ship and its crew, but that the defendant was still liable for any damages caused by the trespass
• The case of McGuire v. Almy illustrates the defense of others, as the court found that the defendant was justified in restraining the plaintiff, who was suffering from a mental illness and posed a threat to her caregiver
  • The court emphasized the defendant's reasonable belief in the necessity of intervention and the proportionality of the force used
• These cases demonstrate the application of various defenses to intentional torts and the factors that courts consider in evaluating their validity, such as the nature of the threat, the reasonableness of the defendant's actions, and the public policy implications of the defense