The following are defenses that the defendant may raise in response to the plaintiff’s intentional tort claim:
- Consent
- Self-Defense
- Defense of Others
- Defense of Property
- Recapture of Chattels
- Necessity
- Arrest
- Justification
Consent
- If the plaintiff has consented to an intentional interference with her person or property, the defendant will not be liable for that interference.
- Consent may be implied.
- From conduct, custom, or circumstances
- If someone in the defendant’s position would reasonably believe that consent exists, then implied consent exists regardless of the plaintiff’s state of mind.
- Consent may be valid even if never manifested to the defendant, so long as it could be proven that the plaintiff subjectively consents.
- Ex. Mark tells all of his coworkers that he would love for Sheila to come onto his property and use his pool whenever she wants. Sheila comes onto the property without asking. Mark has consented to Sheila’s entry. Sheila has not trespassed.
- Consent may be indicated by the plaintiff’s inaction.
- A reasonable person in the defendant’s position must be able to infer consent from the inaction.
- Ex. Sally tells Caleb that she will give him a hug. Caleb does and says nothing, so Sally hugs him. A reasonable person would believe that Sally’s silence and inaction equates to consent.
- Consent invalidated if plaintiff has a lack of capacity.
- Child, intoxicated, unconscious
- However, consent will be implied “as a matter of law” if:
- Plaintiff is unable to give consent
- Immediate action is necessary to save plaintiff’s life/health
- No indication exists that plaintiff would not consent if able
- A reasonable person would consent given the circumstances
- Consent does not privilege defendant to act substantially beyond the scope of that consent.
- However, consent may be exceeded in an emergency.
- Courts are split re: consent to criminal acts.
- Majority rule is consent is ineffective if the act in question is a crime.
- Consent may be implied.