When an individual has been reported in a court of law for a tort involvement, he or she can avoid related liabilities by asserting several defenses. Self-defense is the first reason a defendant can use it, and this mainly works for tort cases relating to assault and battery. The first requirement for this declaration is that there has to be a substantial belief suggesting a forthcoming danger such as getting killed or injured. Secondly, there has to be a belief that the potential harm can only be mitigated through force but not in excess. In such cases, the court applies the “objectively reasonable person” approach to establish whether a sensible individual would act in a similar manner.
Defense of property is the other element categorized as an exception for conduct that may otherwise lead to intentional torts, and this also applies to assault and battery. However, to use it in a court of law, the defendant must prove that the applied force was meant to harm an offender, in this case, a thief and that the impact was required to protect the assets. Consequently, deadly force is not acceptable as a defense of property unless the offender intended to harm the landholder or other individuals within the vicinity. Consent is the third privilege used in intentional tort cases, which applies in cases where the victim authorized the tortfeasor to engage in an act that would later be classified as an offense. Consequently, with the appropriate evidence, the defendant is relieved of all charges.
Consequently, to illustrate how courts and individuals interact with the scope of content, it is necessary to use a relevant example. The O’Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co case involved a passenger who was vaccinated in a steamship and later sued the owner of the boat when she developed complications (United States V. Carroll Towing Co.). In such a case, the rule of law indicates that when a defender decides to use consent as a justification, the circumstances must be analyzed objectively. However, only clear and obvious evidence may declare such consent or its absence. The plaintiff approached the ship’s surgeon for vaccination in the quarantine area without being coerced. Additionally, she never illustrated any resistance while receiving the injection. As a result, when she charged the ship’s owner for assault and negligence, the court ruled in favor of the defendant based on the element of consent. Cunard S.S. Co was right to assert the defense of consent because O’Brien agreed to the physical contact made by the surgeon.
The law allows for individuals to use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property. This pair of rights is necessary because criminals are all over, and one can never report suspicions to relevant authorities in good time before there are attacked. However, how people exercise the privilege to use force in the name of defense can reflect how different people value their property and lives. For instance, individuals who cherish their wealth and would not want to lose it might use excess force to protect their property. On the other hand, fearful individuals will not be quick to fight attackers because they do not view the use of force as a reasonable solution. Different people exercise their rights to defend lives and properties in various ways. Nonetheless, the goal should always be to protect oneself and not use deadly force on the tortfeasor.
For every violated tort law, there are resulting injuries, which means that the tortfeasor has to pay for the damages caused. However, there are cases where the defendant is obliged to pay for liabilities of torts committed by another. For instance, in product liability, companies are held responsible for any injuries resulting from their product, even if it is an employee or partner responsible for the misconduct. Similarly, in strict liability, the defendant has to pay for damages even when they are without fault. The only requirement is a connection between the actual tort and the defendant’s responsibilities.