Intro to Law and Legal Process

5.4 Defenses to tort liability

Citation:

Tort law provides defendants with various defenses to avoid or reduce liability. These defenses include consent, assumption of risk, comparative negligence, and immunity. Understanding these defenses is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in tort litigation.

Each defense has specific elements and requirements that must be proven. For example, consent requires voluntary agreement, while assumption of risk involves knowingly encountering danger. The applicability and strength of these defenses can significantly impact the outcome of tort cases.

Categories of tort defenses

Tort defenses provide a legal basis for a defendant to avoid or reduce liability in a tort case
Several categories of defenses exist, each with specific elements and requirements that must be proven
Understanding the available defenses is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in tort litigation

Consent serves as a defense when the plaintiff voluntarily agreed to the conduct that caused the alleged harm
The consent must be given freely and with knowledge of the risks involved
Consent can be a complete defense, negating liability entirely, or a partial defense, reducing damages

Express consent is directly communicated through words or writing (signing a waiver)
Implied consent is inferred from the plaintiff's conduct or the circumstances (participating in a contact sport)
The type of consent required depends on the nature of the activity and the associated risks

The scope of consent is limited to the specific conduct or activity agreed upon
Exceeding the scope of consent can negate the defense (consenting to a minor surgery vs. a major surgery)
The defendant must stay within the boundaries of the plaintiff's consent to avoid liability

The plaintiff must have the legal and mental capacity to give valid consent
Minors and individuals with mental impairments may lack the capacity to consent
The defendant must ensure that the plaintiff has the necessary capacity for the consent to be effective

Assumption of risk

Assumption of risk is a defense when the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly exposed themselves to a known danger
By engaging in the risky activity, the plaintiff is deemed to have accepted the inherent risks
This defense can bar or reduce the plaintiff's recovery, depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances

Elements of assumption of risk

The plaintiff had knowledge of the risk involved
The plaintiff appreciated and understood the nature and extent of the risk
The plaintiff voluntarily encountered the risk
The plaintiff's decision to encounter the risk was unreasonable under the circumstances

Express vs implied assumption

Express assumption of risk occurs when the plaintiff explicitly agrees to accept the risk (signing a liability waiver)
Implied assumption of risk is inferred from the plaintiff's conduct or the circumstances (engaging in a dangerous sport)
The type of assumption required depends on the nature of the activity and the clarity of the risk

Reasonable vs unreasonable assumption

Reasonable assumption of risk involves encountering a risk that a prudent person would consider acceptable under the circumstances
Unreasonable assumption of risk involves encountering a risk that is clearly dangerous and unjustified
The reasonableness of the assumption affects the applicability and strength of the defense

Comparative and contributory negligence

Comparative and contributory negligence defenses allocate fault between the plaintiff and the defendant
These defenses apply when the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injuries
The specific rules and consequences vary by jurisdiction, with three main approaches: pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence, and contributory negligence

Pure comparative negligence

Under pure comparative negligence, the plaintiff's damages are reduced in proportion to their percentage of fault
The plaintiff can recover even if they are more at fault than the defendant (51% at fault, recovers 49% of damages)
This approach allows for a more precise allocation of fault and damages

Modified comparative negligence

Modified comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to recover if their fault is below a certain threshold (usually 50% or 51%)
If the plaintiff's fault exceeds the threshold, they are barred from recovery entirely
There are two types of modified comparative negligence: the 50% rule and the 51% rule

Contributory negligence

Under contributory negligence, any negligence by the plaintiff completely bars their recovery
Even if the plaintiff is only slightly at fault (1%), they cannot recover any damages from the defendant
This approach has been criticized as harsh and has been abandoned by most jurisdictions in favor of comparative negligence

Immunity and privilege

Immunity and privilege defenses protect certain individuals or entities from tort liability based on their status or the nature of their conduct
These defenses are based on public policy considerations and aim to encourage socially beneficial activities
The scope and applicability of these defenses vary depending on the specific type of immunity or privilege

Sovereign immunity

Sovereign immunity protects government entities and their employees from tort liability
The rationale is to prevent interference with governmental functions and preserve public resources
Sovereign immunity can be waived by statute, allowing limited tort claims against the government

Charitable immunity

Charitable immunity protects charitable organizations from tort liability
The purpose is to encourage charitable activities and protect the organizations' assets from depletion
Many jurisdictions have abolished or limited charitable immunity due to concerns about fairness and accountability

Parental immunity

Parental immunity prevents children from suing their parents for tort claims
The rationale is to preserve family harmony and avoid interference with parental authority
Most jurisdictions have abolished or significantly limited parental immunity, recognizing exceptions for egregious conduct

Absolute vs qualified privilege

Absolute privilege provides complete immunity from tort liability, regardless of the defendant's motives or the unreasonableness of their conduct (judicial proceedings)
Qualified privilege provides limited immunity, protecting the defendant only if they acted in good faith and without malice (employment references)
The level of privilege depends on the social importance of the activity and the need for protection

Necessity and justification

Necessity and justification defenses apply when the defendant's conduct, although typically tortious, is deemed legally permissible due to the circumstances
These defenses recognize that in certain situations, the benefits of the defendant's actions outweigh the harm caused
The specific requirements and consequences of these defenses vary depending on the type of necessity or justification

Public vs private necessity

Public necessity justifies conduct that is necessary to prevent a greater harm to the public (destroying a building to stop the spread of a fire)
Private necessity justifies conduct that is necessary to protect the defendant's own interests or property (trespassing to escape a dangerous animal)
The level of necessity required and the permissible scope of action differ between public and private necessity

Requirements for necessity defense

The defendant faced an imminent and significant threat of harm
The defendant had no reasonable alternative to the tortious conduct
The harm caused by the defendant's conduct was less severe than the harm avoided
The defendant's conduct was proportional to the threat faced

Statute of limitations

The statute of limitations is a time limit within which a plaintiff must file a tort claim
If the plaintiff fails to file the claim within the prescribed period, the claim is barred, and the defendant has a complete defense
The purpose of the statute of limitations is to promote fairness, prevent stale claims, and provide closure

Discovery rule

The discovery rule modifies the statute of limitations, starting the time period when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury and its cause
This rule applies in cases where the injury is not immediately apparent or the plaintiff is unaware of the defendant's role (medical malpractice)
The discovery rule balances the interests of the plaintiff in pursuing a claim and the defendant in avoiding stale claims

Tolling of statute of limitations

Tolling refers to the pausing or delaying of the statute of limitations period
Certain circumstances, such as the plaintiff's minority, mental incapacity, or the defendant's absence from the jurisdiction, can toll the statute of limitations
Tolling provisions ensure that plaintiffs with legitimate reasons for delay are not unfairly barred from pursuing their claims

Preemption by federal law

Federal preemption is a defense that applies when a federal law supersedes or displaces a state tort claim
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides the basis for federal preemption
When a tort claim conflicts with or is covered by federal law, the defendant can assert preemption as a defense

Express vs implied preemption

Express preemption occurs when a federal statute explicitly states that it preempts state law
Implied preemption occurs when the federal law's structure and purpose indicate an intent to preempt state law, even without an explicit statement
The type of preemption depends on the language and intent of the federal law at issue

Types of federal preemption

Field preemption: Federal law occupies an entire field, leaving no room for state regulation (nuclear safety)
Conflict preemption: State law directly conflicts with federal law, making compliance with both impossible (drug labeling requirements)
Obstacle preemption: State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of federal objectives (airline regulations)

Res judicata and collateral estoppel

Res judicata and collateral estoppel are defenses based on the preclusive effect of prior judgments
These defenses prevent the relitigation of claims or issues that have already been adjudicated, promoting judicial efficiency and consistency
The specific requirements and consequences of these defenses depend on the type of preclusion being asserted

Elements of res judicata

The prior judgment was final and on the merits
The parties in the current case are the same as or in privity with the parties in the prior case
The current claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the prior claim
Res judicata bars the relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in the prior case

Elements of collateral estoppel

The issue in the current case is identical to the issue in the prior case
The issue was actually litigated and determined in the prior case
The determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment
The party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior case
Collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of specific issues, even if the claims are different

Superseding and intervening causes

Superseding and intervening causes are defenses that apply when an unforeseeable event breaks the causal chain between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury
These defenses shift liability from the defendant to the intervening cause, either partially or completely
The key factors in determining the applicability of these defenses are foreseeability and the nature of the intervening cause

Foreseeability of intervening causes

A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening event that completely relieves the defendant of liability (criminal act of a third party)
A foreseeable intervening cause does not break the causal chain and does not relieve the defendant of liability (negligent medical treatment of the plaintiff's injuries)
The foreseeability of the intervening cause determines its impact on the defendant's liability

Substantial factor test

The substantial factor test is used to determine whether an intervening cause is significant enough to break the causal chain
If the intervening cause is a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's injury, it may supersede the defendant's liability
The test considers the significance and independence of the intervening cause in relation to the defendant's conduct

Mitigation of damages

Mitigation of damages is a defense that applies when the plaintiff fails to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses after suffering an injury
The defendant is not liable for damages that the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided
This defense encourages plaintiffs to act responsibly and prevents the defendant from being liable for unnecessary losses

Reasonable efforts to mitigate

The plaintiff must make reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages, considering their circumstances and abilities
Reasonable efforts may include seeking medical treatment, finding alternative employment, or making repairs to damaged property
The defendant bears the burden of proving that the plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate

Avoidable consequences doctrine

The avoidable consequences doctrine is closely related to mitigation of damages
Under this doctrine, the plaintiff cannot recover damages for losses that could have been avoided through reasonable efforts
The doctrine applies after the initial injury has occurred and focuses on the plaintiff's post-injury conduct
The avoidable consequences doctrine limits the defendant's liability to the damages that were unavoidable

Key Terms to Review (44)

Collateral Estoppel: Collateral estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided in a previous case. This concept ensures that once a court has ruled on a specific point of law or fact, that decision is binding in future cases involving the same parties, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and reducing the risk of inconsistent verdicts. It plays an important role in various legal contexts, influencing pretrial motions and defenses in tort liability cases.

Res judicata: Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, is a legal doctrine that prevents parties from relitigating a claim or issue that has already been judged in a final verdict by a competent court. This principle ensures that once a matter is decided, it cannot be reopened or contested in future litigation, promoting finality and judicial efficiency. It plays a significant role in shaping the legal landscape by preventing unnecessary duplication of efforts and resources in the courts.

Avoidable consequences doctrine: The avoidable consequences doctrine is a legal principle that holds that a plaintiff cannot recover damages for losses that they could have reasonably avoided after the defendant's negligent act. This doctrine emphasizes the responsibility of the injured party to mitigate their losses and take appropriate actions to reduce the harm they experience. By applying this doctrine, courts aim to prevent claimants from benefiting from their own inaction or failure to take reasonable steps to lessen the impact of the injury.

Substantial factor test: The substantial factor test is a legal standard used to determine whether a defendant's conduct was a significant factor in bringing about a particular harm or injury. It helps establish causation in tort law by focusing on whether the defendant's actions contributed substantially to the plaintiff's damages, rather than requiring that those actions be the sole or primary cause of the injury.

Mitigation of damages: Mitigation of damages refers to the legal obligation of a party who has suffered loss or injury to take reasonable steps to reduce or minimize that loss. This concept is important as it connects to the idea that a plaintiff cannot claim compensation for losses that could have been avoided with reasonable effort, influencing both tort liability and contractual breaches.

Foreseeability of Intervening Causes: Foreseeability of intervening causes refers to the ability to predict or anticipate an event that occurs after an initial act and affects the outcome of a situation. In the context of tort liability, this concept is crucial as it helps determine whether a defendant can be held liable for damages caused by events that were not directly caused by their actions but could have been reasonably anticipated.

Elements of Collateral Estoppel: The elements of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, are legal principles that prevent parties from relitigating issues that have already been resolved in a final judgment. This doctrine serves to promote judicial efficiency and protect parties from the burden of multiple lawsuits over the same issue. For collateral estoppel to apply, there must be a prior judgment, the issue must have been essential to that judgment, and the parties in both cases must be the same or in privity with each other.

Elements of res judicata: The elements of res judicata are legal principles that prevent a party from re-litigating issues that have already been settled by a final judgment in a previous case. This doctrine ensures that once a court has made a decision, the matter is considered conclusively resolved, thus promoting judicial efficiency and protecting parties from the burden of multiple lawsuits. The main elements include: a final judgment on the merits, the same parties or their privies involved in both cases, and the same cause of action being litigated.

Superseding Cause: A superseding cause is an event or action that interrupts the chain of causation between a defendant's conduct and a plaintiff's injury, leading to a finding that the defendant is not liable for the damages. This legal concept is essential in determining liability, as it shifts responsibility away from the original actor when an unforeseen event occurs, which significantly contributes to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. It helps to protect defendants from being held accountable for injuries that are not directly traceable to their actions.

Intervening cause: An intervening cause is an event or action that occurs after a defendant's initial act of negligence but before the harm to the plaintiff, which can break the chain of causation. This legal concept plays a crucial role in determining liability, as it can absolve a defendant from responsibility if the intervening cause is deemed unforeseeable or independent of their actions. Understanding how an intervening cause operates helps clarify the boundaries of tort liability and the effects of unexpected events on legal responsibility.

Obstacle preemption: Obstacle preemption occurs when a state law or action is invalidated because it conflicts with a federal law or regulation, creating an obstacle to the federal objectives. This principle ensures that state regulations do not hinder the implementation of federal policies, thus maintaining the supremacy of federal law in areas where Congress has the authority to legislate. Obstacle preemption often arises in tort liability cases when state laws may interfere with federally established standards or regulations.

Reasonable efforts to mitigate: Reasonable efforts to mitigate refers to the obligation of a party who has suffered harm or loss to take appropriate and sensible steps to minimize the damages resulting from that harm. This concept is particularly relevant in tort law, as it emphasizes the responsibility of injured parties to act in a way that limits their losses and does not allow them to recover for damages that could have been avoided through reasonable actions.

Conflict Preemption: Conflict preemption occurs when a federal law overrides or invalidates a state law due to conflicting provisions, effectively preventing the state from enforcing its legislation. This legal doctrine ensures that federal laws take precedence when there is a direct conflict with state laws, thus maintaining a uniform legal framework across the country.

Implied preemption: Implied preemption occurs when a higher level of government enacts laws or regulations that indirectly prevent a lower level of government from enforcing its own laws in the same area. This can happen when the federal law is so comprehensive that it leaves no room for state regulation, or when state laws conflict with federal laws in a way that makes compliance with both impossible. This concept is essential in understanding how different levels of government interact, especially in tort liability defenses.

Field Preemption: Field preemption occurs when a higher authority, such as the federal government, occupies a particular regulatory area to the extent that a lower authority, like a state government, cannot enact conflicting laws. This principle ensures uniformity in laws across jurisdictions by preventing states from creating their own regulations in areas that have been federally regulated. Understanding field preemption is crucial when evaluating defenses to tort liability, as it can determine whether state laws can impose liability when federal laws already govern the issue.

Express preemption: Express preemption occurs when a higher level of government enacts a law that explicitly states it overrides or displaces state or local laws in a specific area. This legal principle ensures that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state legislation, emphasizing the supremacy of federal authority as outlined in the Constitution. The concept is particularly important in understanding how federal regulations can impact state policies, especially in areas like tort liability.

Discovery Rule: The discovery rule is a legal principle that determines when a party must file a lawsuit based on when they discovered or should have discovered the injury or harm that gave rise to the claim. This rule extends the statute of limitations, allowing for more time to file a claim if the injured party was unaware of their injury or its cause until a later date. It ensures that plaintiffs have a fair opportunity to seek justice, even when the harm was not immediately apparent.

Requirements for Necessity Defense: The requirements for necessity defense refer to the legal criteria that must be met for a defendant to justify their actions as necessary to prevent a greater harm. This defense is relevant in tort liability cases, where a defendant claims that their actions, which would normally be considered wrongful, were necessary to avoid an imminent threat or significant harm. Understanding these requirements helps establish when an individual can be excused from liability due to the circumstances they faced.

Federal Preemption: Federal preemption is a legal doctrine that occurs when federal law takes precedence over state laws or regulations in cases where both apply. This principle is rooted in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal law is the 'supreme Law of the Land.' It plays a crucial role in determining whether state tort laws are valid when federal statutes address similar issues.

Private necessity: Private necessity is a legal doctrine that allows an individual to infringe upon another's property rights in order to prevent a significant harm or injury to themselves or others. This defense acknowledges that while a person's actions may cause some damage, the necessity of protecting oneself or others can justify those actions under specific circumstances.

Tolling of statute of limitations: Tolling of statute of limitations refers to the legal practice that temporarily suspends or extends the time period within which a party can bring a lawsuit. This concept is significant because it acknowledges situations where the typical time limit for filing a claim should be paused, allowing an injured party more time to seek legal recourse under specific circumstances, such as when the injured party is unaware of their injury or is incapacitated.

Public Necessity: Public necessity is a legal defense used in tort law that allows an individual to commit an act that would otherwise be considered a tort if it is done to prevent a greater harm or to protect the public from imminent danger. This concept is based on the idea that certain actions, when aimed at preserving public safety or welfare, may justify infringement on individual rights or property. It highlights the balance between individual rights and community needs during emergencies or crises.

Qualified privilege: Qualified privilege is a legal defense that protects individuals from liability in defamation cases when the statements made are in good faith and serve a legitimate interest. This defense is crucial as it balances the right to free speech with the need to protect individuals from harmful false statements. It allows for open communication in specific contexts, such as in the workplace or during legal proceedings, where truthful information needs to be shared without fear of retribution.

Absolute privilege: Absolute privilege is a legal defense that provides complete immunity from liability in defamation cases for statements made in certain contexts, such as during judicial proceedings or legislative debates. This privilege serves to encourage open and honest communication in specific situations, allowing individuals to speak freely without fear of being sued for defamation. It is important to note that this privilege is absolute, meaning it cannot be contested or limited by the intent or truthfulness of the statement made.

Parental Immunity: Parental immunity is a legal doctrine that protects parents from being sued for torts committed against their minor children. This concept is rooted in the idea of preserving family harmony and parental authority, allowing parents to make decisions without fear of legal repercussions from their children. The doctrine has limitations and exceptions, as courts balance the need to protect family dynamics with the rights of children to seek justice for wrongs done to them.

Charitable immunity: Charitable immunity is a legal doctrine that provides protection to charitable organizations from being held liable for negligence in certain circumstances. This principle is rooted in the idea that charities serve a public good and should be encouraged to operate without the fear of constant litigation, thus ensuring that resources are allocated toward charitable activities rather than legal defenses.

Pure comparative negligence: Pure comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that determines liability in tort cases by allowing a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially at fault for their injuries. This principle allocates damages based on the percentage of fault assigned to each party involved in the incident, making it essential for understanding how compensation is awarded in personal injury cases.

Contributory negligence: Contributory negligence is a legal doctrine that can prevent a plaintiff from recovering damages if they are found to be partly at fault for the incident that caused their injury. This concept emphasizes the shared responsibility between the parties involved in an accident, and it plays a critical role in determining liability. If the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their harm, it may significantly impact their ability to seek compensation from the other party.

Modified comparative negligence: Modified comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used to allocate liability in tort cases where both the plaintiff and defendant share some degree of fault for an injury. This principle allows the plaintiff to recover damages as long as their percentage of fault does not exceed a specific threshold, typically set at 50% or 51%. If the plaintiff's fault surpasses this limit, they are barred from recovering any damages.

Sovereign Immunity: Sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that protects government entities from being sued without their consent. This principle stems from the idea that the state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suits for its actions, thereby preserving its dignity and functionality. Understanding this concept is essential, especially when examining defenses to tort liability, as it can prevent individuals from pursuing claims against government officials and agencies under certain conditions.

Unreasonable assumption of risk: Unreasonable assumption of risk refers to a legal doctrine in tort law where an individual knowingly engages in an activity that carries inherent risks, but does so in a way that is deemed unreasonable under the circumstances. This concept is significant because it can act as a defense for defendants in tort cases, potentially reducing their liability when a plaintiff voluntarily exposes themselves to danger in a reckless manner.

Implied assumption of risk: Implied assumption of risk is a legal doctrine where a person is considered to have accepted the risks associated with a particular activity, even if they did not explicitly agree to it. This concept often arises in tort law, particularly in cases involving negligence, where an injured party may not be able to hold a defendant liable if they voluntarily engaged in an activity that has inherent risks.

Express assumption of risk: Express assumption of risk is a legal doctrine where an individual explicitly agrees to accept the potential dangers associated with a particular activity, often through a written waiver or verbal acknowledgment. This concept is closely tied to the idea that when someone willingly participates in a risky activity, they cannot later claim damages for injuries sustained as a result of that activity, as they have voluntarily accepted those risks. This doctrine serves as a defense against tort liability, indicating that consent to the risks can prevent a plaintiff from recovering damages.

Reasonable assumption of risk: Reasonable assumption of risk refers to a legal doctrine where an individual is considered to have accepted the potential risks associated with an activity or situation, thereby limiting the liability of others in the event of an injury. This concept is closely tied to the idea that individuals engaging in certain activities should be aware of and accept the inherent dangers involved, thus reducing the responsibility of those who may otherwise be held liable.

Elements of Assumption of Risk: The elements of assumption of risk refer to the legal doctrine that acknowledges a person's voluntary exposure to a known risk, which can serve as a defense against tort liability. This doctrine holds that if an individual knowingly and willingly engages in an activity that has inherent risks, they may be barred from recovering damages in the event of an injury. Understanding this concept is crucial for evaluating liability in cases where participants are aware of the dangers involved.

Capacity to consent: Capacity to consent refers to an individual's legal ability to agree to an action or decision, particularly in the context of contracts, medical procedures, or legal agreements. It is a crucial concept that ensures that a person has the mental competence and understanding required to make informed choices, protecting individuals from exploitation and ensuring that agreements are valid.

Scope of consent: The scope of consent refers to the extent and limits of an individual's permission for actions that may otherwise be considered tortious. It defines what is permissible under the agreed terms between parties, highlighting that consent can vary in scope based on context, circumstances, and specific agreements. Understanding the scope of consent is crucial when determining liability in tort cases, as it helps clarify whether a party acted within the boundaries of what was agreed upon.

Express consent: Express consent is a clear and direct agreement given by an individual, which can be communicated verbally or in writing, allowing someone to take a specific action that affects them. This type of consent is crucial in various legal contexts, as it provides an explicit indication that a person agrees to an action, often serving as a defense against claims of tort liability when consent is legally required.

Comparative negligence: Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used to determine the degree of fault of each party involved in an accident or injury, allowing for the apportionment of damages based on their respective levels of responsibility. This principle recognizes that both parties may share some degree of liability, which influences the amount of compensation a plaintiff can recover. Essentially, it shifts some responsibility away from a single defendant to include the actions of the plaintiff as well.

Immunity: Immunity is a legal doctrine that protects certain individuals or entities from being held liable for their actions, even if those actions may have caused harm or injury to others. This concept is particularly relevant in the context of tort law, where certain defenses can prevent claims from being successfully brought against a defendant, providing a shield that allows them to avoid liability under specific circumstances.

Implied consent: Implied consent refers to a situation where an individual's agreement to a course of action is inferred from their conduct or the circumstances surrounding an event, rather than being explicitly stated. This concept plays a significant role in the realm of tort law, particularly when considering defenses against liability for actions that may otherwise be deemed harmful or invasive.

Assumption of Risk: Assumption of risk is a legal doctrine that holds that an individual may not recover for injuries sustained from a risk that they voluntarily accepted. This concept is often applied in tort law to limit liability for defendants when plaintiffs engage in inherently risky activities, acknowledging that the plaintiff knew about the risks involved and chose to participate anyway. This principle plays a significant role in defenses against negligence and strict liability claims.

Consent: Consent refers to the voluntary agreement of an individual to engage in a specific act or allow something to happen, particularly when it comes to personal rights and freedoms. It is a foundational concept in both law and ethics, often playing a crucial role in determining liability in intentional torts and serving as a key defense against claims of wrongdoing. Understanding consent helps clarify when actions may be legally justified or excusable under the law.

Statute of Limitations: A statute of limitations is a law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. This time limit varies depending on the type of case, and it serves to protect individuals from the potential injustice of having to defend against old claims, promoting fairness and efficiency in the legal process.

Table of Contents

🦹intro to law and legal process review