Defenses to Intentional Torts

抗辩事由，是指被告针对原告的诉讼请求而提出的证明原告的诉讼请求不成立或不完全成立,即减轻自己责任或不应承担责任的事实。侵权责任的抗辩事由可以分为两大类：正当理由和外来原因。

Defenses to Intentional Torts

• Introduction
  • Even those plaintiffs who establish a prima facie case are not automatically entitled to compensation.
  • Defendants may try to justify their conduct through the use of various defenses.
  • This means that even if a defendants proves all of the elements of her claim, a defendant can avoid liability by proving a different set of facts to support the defense.
• Consent
  • A defendant is not liable for a tortious act if the plaintiff consented to the defendant's act.
  • Consent includes
    • Express (actual) Consent
    • Implied Consent
  • The common law principle: volenti non fit injuria
    • to a willing person
    • injury is not done
  • Consent may be communicated by actions as well as words
  • Taking part in a game manifests a willingness to submit to such bodily contacts or restrictiona of liberty as are permitted by its rules or usages.
• Self-defense
  • The restatement of Torts
    • An actor is privileged to use reasonable force, not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, to defend himself against unprivileged harmful or offensive contact or other bodliy harm which he reasonably believes that another is about to inflict intentionally upon him.
    • When a person has reasonable grounds to believe that he i being, or is about to be, attacted, he may use such force as is reasonably necessary fpr protection against the potential injury.
• Defense of Property
  • A person may use reasonable force to protect property when she reasonably believes that force is necessary tp prevent the intrusion
  • The use of force must be proportional to the threatened interest.
  • Proportionality generally dose not exist, however, when a person uses deadly force to protect property alone.
• Necessity
  • Necessity can be used as a defense when:
    • A person may interfere with the real or personal property of another in certain emergency situation;
    • The interference is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force;
    • where the threatened injury is substantially more serious than the invasion.
  • Two different categories of the necessity defense:
    • private necessity
      • Provides defendants with a qualified privilege to interfere wit property to protect their own interests, or those of a small group of others.
      • Private necessity is a qualified privilege because it still requires the defendant to compensate the property owner for any damage caused.
    • public necessity
      • avoiding a public disaster
      • an absolute privilege
      • need not compensate the plaintiff for his loss