Necessity and duress are defenses that can shield someone from liability for intentional torts. They allow defendants to argue their actions were justified by extreme circumstances, like breaking a window to escape a fire or trespassing under threat of violence.
These defenses have specific elements that must be proven. For necessity, there must be imminent danger and no reasonable alternatives. Duress requires an overwhelming threat that leaves no choice. Both defenses recognize that sometimes, breaking rules is the only option.
Defenses to Intentional Torts: Necessity and Duress
Necessity and duress defenses
Top images from around the web for Necessity and duress defenses
Tort Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original
Is this image relevant?
Tort Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 1
Top images from around the web for Necessity and duress defenses
Tort Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original
Is this image relevant?
Tort Law - Free of Charge Creative Commons Legal Engraved image View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 1
- Affirmative defenses raised by a defendant to avoid liability for an intentional tort (battery, assault, false imprisonment)
- Argue that the defendant's typically tortious actions were justified by extenuating circumstances
- Shift the burden of proof to the defendant to establish the elements of the defense
Elements of necessity defense
- Clear and imminent danger or threat of harm existed (building fire, medical emergency)
- Harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm caused by the defendant's actions (breaking a window to escape a burning building)
- No reasonable alternative to committing the tortious act was available (no other means of escape or assistance)
- Defendant did not substantially contribute to creating the emergency situation (did not start the fire themselves)
- Defendant's actions were reasonably calculated to avoid the greater harm (breaking the window was the only way to escape the fire safely)
Limitations of necessity defense
- Not available when the defendant's actions protect property rather than human life or health (breaking into a store to steal food during a famine)
- May not apply if the defendant's actions violate a statute or ordinance designed to protect public safety (speeding to get to a hospital during a medical emergency)
- Defendant cannot rely on necessity if they had a legal duty to act differently or assume the risk of the situation (a firefighter entering a burning building as part of their job)
- Generally not available when the defendant had time to seek legal alternatives or assistance from authorities (calling 911 instead of taking matters into their own hands)
Duress as liability negation
- Occurs when a person is compelled to commit a tortious act due to the wrongful threats or actions of another (being forced at gunpoint to trespass on private property)
- Defendant must prove they were subjected to an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or other substantial harm (threat of physical violence or blackmail)
- Threat must have been sufficient to overcome the will of a person of ordinary firmness and resistance (a reasonable person would have complied under the circumstances)
- Defendant must have had no reasonable means of escape or alternative course of action (unable to flee or seek help from authorities)
- If proven, duress negates the defendant's liability for the intentional tort as their actions were not voluntary (the defendant was acting under coercion, not of their own free will)
Key Terms to Review (16)
Affirmative Defense: An affirmative defense is a legal strategy used by a defendant to counter a plaintiff's claims by introducing evidence that, if proven, negates or mitigates liability. This approach not only acknowledges the plaintiff's allegations but also presents additional facts that can justify the defendant's actions or absolve them from responsibility. In certain situations, such as necessity or duress, an affirmative defense can effectively demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was warranted under the circumstances.
Duress: Duress refers to a situation where an individual is forced or coerced into acting against their will, often through threats or harm. This concept is crucial in understanding the limits of consent and can be a defense in both contract law and tort law, as it questions the validity of the actions taken under such pressure. It challenges the notion of free will and raises important questions about the boundaries of consent and intent, especially in intentional torts.
Economic duress: Economic duress is a situation where one party is forced to enter into a contract or agreement due to wrongful or unlawful threats that create pressure on their financial situation. This concept involves the coercion of a party's will, typically involving a threat to withhold or manipulate something valuable, such as financial resources, which ultimately impacts their ability to make free and voluntary decisions. Understanding economic duress is crucial as it highlights the balance between consent and coercion in contractual relationships.
Harris v. Jones: Harris v. Jones is a landmark case that deals with the concepts of necessity and duress in tort law, focusing on the circumstances under which a defendant can be held liable for their actions when compelled by external pressure. The case explores the delicate balance between individual agency and the influence of external forces, particularly when assessing whether an individual acted voluntarily or under duress, which is critical for understanding liability in tort actions.
Imminent Danger: Imminent danger refers to a situation where there is an immediate threat to someone's safety or well-being, often requiring urgent action to prevent harm. This concept is crucial in understanding the legal defenses available in situations of necessity or duress, where a person may be compelled to act in a way that would otherwise be considered unlawful to avoid the impending harm.
Mitigation of damages: Mitigation of damages refers to the legal principle that a party suffering loss or injury must take reasonable steps to reduce or minimize their damages. This concept emphasizes that a plaintiff cannot claim compensation for losses that could have been avoided through reasonable efforts, connecting to the responsibility of individuals to limit their own harm in both torts and contractual situations.
Model Penal Code § 2.09: Model Penal Code § 2.09 addresses the concepts of necessity and duress in relation to criminal liability. It provides a framework for understanding how certain circumstances can potentially excuse or justify illegal actions when individuals are faced with immediate threats or severe pressure, making a choice between two evils.
Necessity: Necessity is a legal doctrine that allows a person to engage in conduct that would otherwise be considered unlawful if it is done to prevent a greater harm from occurring. It serves as a defense in various legal contexts, justifying actions taken in urgent situations where the avoidance of harm is paramount. This principle underscores the importance of evaluating the circumstances surrounding an action to determine if the necessity defense can apply, particularly when weighing the balance between rights and responsibilities.
Necessity vs. Consent: Necessity refers to a legal doctrine allowing an individual to act in a way that would typically be considered a tort, in order to prevent greater harm. In contrast, consent is the agreement given by an individual that allows another party to act in a certain manner that would otherwise be considered a tortious act. Understanding the interplay between necessity and consent is crucial in analyzing defenses to tort claims and the circumstances under which individuals may be held liable or excused from liability.
Necessity vs. Self-Defense: Necessity and self-defense are legal defenses used to justify actions that would otherwise be considered tortious or criminal. Necessity involves acting to prevent a greater harm, while self-defense is about protecting oneself from imminent harm. Both concepts aim to provide a legal excuse for actions taken under extreme circumstances, but they differ in their application and underlying rationale.
Ploof v. Putnam: Ploof v. Putnam is a landmark case in tort law that addresses the concept of necessity as a defense against liability for trespass. In this case, the court ruled that an individual may be justified in trespassing on another's property if such action is necessary to prevent a greater harm, highlighting the balance between property rights and the necessity of taking action to avoid peril.
Private necessity: Private necessity is a legal doctrine that allows an individual to interfere with another person's property rights if doing so is necessary to prevent significant harm to oneself or others. This principle underscores the balance between the protection of property rights and the need for individuals to act in emergency situations where harm may be imminent. It emphasizes that while one can justify the intrusion into someone else's property, they must also be prepared to compensate the owner for any damages incurred during the act.
Public Necessity: Public necessity is a legal doctrine that allows an individual to act without liability for trespass or other tortious acts when the actions are taken to protect the public from imminent harm. This concept applies primarily in situations where there is a significant threat to the safety or welfare of the community, allowing for actions that would normally be deemed unlawful if done solely for private benefit. It emphasizes the importance of balancing individual rights against the need to safeguard public interests during emergencies.
Reasonable alternatives: Reasonable alternatives refer to the options available to an individual in a situation that could potentially mitigate harm or avoid unlawful actions. In the context of necessity and duress, the availability of reasonable alternatives is critical for determining whether the justification for an action holds up, as it assesses if a person acted out of true necessity or if they had other viable options to consider before taking action.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 197: Restatement (Second) of Torts § 197 addresses the legal concept of necessity as a defense against liability in tort law. It states that a person may be privileged to enter or interfere with land to prevent serious harm to themselves or others, emphasizing that the necessity must be reasonable and not caused by the actor's own misconduct. This principle connects deeply with situations where an individual acts out of necessity to avert a threat, balancing the need for individual action against property rights.
Threat of harm: A threat of harm refers to an expression or indication that someone may cause injury or damage to another person or their property. This concept is significant in legal contexts, particularly when assessing claims of duress and necessity, as it explores the conditions under which individuals may feel compelled to act against their will due to fear of imminent danger.
Affirmative Defense
See definitionAn affirmative defense is a legal strategy used by a defendant to counter a plaintiff's claims by introducing evidence that, if proven, negates or mitigates liability. This approach not only acknowledges the plaintiff's allegations but also presents additional facts that can justify the defendant's actions or absolve them from responsibility. In certain situations, such as necessity or duress, an affirmative defense can effectively demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was warranted under the circumstances.
Term 1 of 16
Affirmative Defense
See definitionAn affirmative defense is a legal strategy used by a defendant to counter a plaintiff's claims by introducing evidence that, if proven, negates or mitigates liability. This approach not only acknowledges the plaintiff's allegations but also presents additional facts that can justify the defendant's actions or absolve them from responsibility. In certain situations, such as necessity or duress, an affirmative defense can effectively demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was warranted under the circumstances.
Term 1 of 16
