Which defense arises when the plaintiff gave consent to the conduct that caused harm?

Which defense arises when the plaintiff gave consent to the conduct that caused harm?

• A. Consent
• B. Mistake
• C. Necessity
• D. Self-defense

Answer: (A)

Consent as a defense to harm arises when the person harmed agreed to the conduct that caused the injury. When consent is valid, the act isn’t wrongful, so liability for a tort like battery or assault generally doesn’t attach. For consent to work, it must be voluntary and informed, given either expressly or through actions within the understood scope of what was permitted. It also must be valid—free of duress, misrepresentation, or incapacity—and the act must be lawful and within the boundaries of what was agreed. Think about situations like contact in sports or a medical procedure with informed consent. In sports, players’re typically understood to consent to ordinary physical contact, so injuries that occur within that expected contact usually aren’t torts. In medicine, a patient must consent to the procedure; without informed consent, the defense wouldn’t apply. If the harm goes beyond what was consented to, or if consent was invalid, the defense fails and liability can arise. The other options don’t fit because mistake deals with a misbelief about facts, not an agreement to the conduct; necessity involves acting to prevent a greater harm, not consent to the specific harm caused; and self-defense involves protecting oneself from an imminent threat, not voluntary consent to an act.

Consent as a defense to harm arises when the person harmed agreed to the conduct that caused the injury. When consent is valid, the act isn’t wrongful, so liability for a tort like battery or assault generally doesn’t attach. For consent to work, it must be voluntary and informed, given either expressly or through actions within the understood scope of what was permitted. It also must be valid—free of duress, misrepresentation, or incapacity—and the act must be lawful and within the boundaries of what was agreed.

Think about situations like contact in sports or a medical procedure with informed consent. In sports, players’re typically understood to consent to ordinary physical contact, so injuries that occur within that expected contact usually aren’t torts. In medicine, a patient must consent to the procedure; without informed consent, the defense wouldn’t apply. If the harm goes beyond what was consented to, or if consent was invalid, the defense fails and liability can arise.

The other options don’t fit because mistake deals with a misbelief about facts, not an agreement to the conduct; necessity involves acting to prevent a greater harm, not consent to the specific harm caused; and self-defense involves protecting oneself from an imminent threat, not voluntary consent to an act.