Which defense to intentional torts involves voluntary agreement to allow the invasion of rights?

Which defense to intentional torts involves voluntary agreement to allow the invasion of rights?

• A. Consent
• B. Self-Defense
• C. Defense of Other
• D. Defense of Property

Answer: (A)

Consent is the defense at play when someone voluntarily agrees to allow an invasion of their rights, so liability for an intentional tort is avoided. When a person says “yes” to a touch, procedure, or contact, they’ve accepted the risk or consummated the interaction, and the other party isn’t liable for a tort like battery or false imprisonment. The key is that the agreement must be voluntary, informed, and within the scope of what is being done. If someone consents to a surgical procedure or to playing a contact sport, those acts aren’t tortious, provided the act stays within what was consented to and the person had the capacity to consent. But consent isn’t limitless. It can be invalid if obtained by fraud, duress, or misrepresentation, or if it covers only a specific scope and the actor goes beyond it. For example, agreeing to a procedure for one purpose doesn’t justify a different, more invasive act, and consent from someone who lacks capacity isn’t valid. This defense differs from other justifications like self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property, which justify actions in response to threats or to protect interests rather than from a pre-arranged permission to invade rights.

Consent is the defense at play when someone voluntarily agrees to allow an invasion of their rights, so liability for an intentional tort is avoided. When a person says “yes” to a touch, procedure, or contact, they’ve accepted the risk or consummated the interaction, and the other party isn’t liable for a tort like battery or false imprisonment. The key is that the agreement must be voluntary, informed, and within the scope of what is being done. If someone consents to a surgical procedure or to playing a contact sport, those acts aren’t tortious, provided the act stays within what was consented to and the person had the capacity to consent.

But consent isn’t limitless. It can be invalid if obtained by fraud, duress, or misrepresentation, or if it covers only a specific scope and the actor goes beyond it. For example, agreeing to a procedure for one purpose doesn’t justify a different, more invasive act, and consent from someone who lacks capacity isn’t valid. This defense differs from other justifications like self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property, which justify actions in response to threats or to protect interests rather than from a pre-arranged permission to invade rights.