Which of the following is a recognized defense to intentional torts?

Enhance your Bar Exam preparation with Themis Bar Exam Quiz. Use hints and multiple choice questions to sharpen your understanding. Excel in your Bar Exam!

Multiple Choice

Which of the following is a recognized defense to intentional torts?

Consent is a defense to intentional torts because the act remains wrongful only if it is unwanted. When someone freely agrees to a specific act, the intentional element is defeated and there is no tort. This can be express (clear agreement) or implied (conduct that shows agreement through circumstances). The key is that the consent must be valid: voluntary, informed (as appropriate), and within the scope of what is consented to. For example, in medical care, a patient who consents to a procedure allows the physician to perform it; if a complication arises, there’s no battery so long as the procedure stayed within the scope of that consent. In sports, participants consent to ordinary contact under the rules of the game, so injuries resulting from that play aren’t treated as torts. Other choices are tied to negligence rather than intentional torts. Res ipsa loquitur explains a negligence inference, not a defense to intentional wrongdoing. Comparative negligence deals with apportioning fault in negligence cases, not knocking out the intentional element. Duty to warn relates to negligence standards of care rather than a defense to intentional harm.

Consent is a defense to intentional torts because the act remains wrongful only if it is unwanted. When someone freely agrees to a specific act, the intentional element is defeated and there is no tort. This can be express (clear agreement) or implied (conduct that shows agreement through circumstances). The key is that the consent must be valid: voluntary, informed (as appropriate), and within the scope of what is consented to.

For example, in medical care, a patient who consents to a procedure allows the physician to perform it; if a complication arises, there’s no battery so long as the procedure stayed within the scope of that consent. In sports, participants consent to ordinary contact under the rules of the game, so injuries resulting from that play aren’t treated as torts.

Other choices are tied to negligence rather than intentional torts. Res ipsa loquitur explains a negligence inference, not a defense to intentional wrongdoing. Comparative negligence deals with apportioning fault in negligence cases, not knocking out the intentional element. Duty to warn relates to negligence standards of care rather than a defense to intentional harm.

More practice questions