Defenses

During a rugby match, Dana tackles Pat harder than he expected but within the rules of the game, causing a broken arm. Pat sues Dana for battery, claiming he only expected mild contact. 

Dana can successfully use the defense of consent.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

Explanation: In a sport like rugby, participants generally consent to a certain level of physical contact inherent to the game. Since tackling is a customary part of rugby, Dana can argue that Pat consented to the general type of contact, even though the injury was more severe than expected. Consent applies to the type of contact (here, tackling), not the specific harm.

Sarah is approached by a man in a dark alley who asks her for bus money. Believing she is about to be harmed, Sarah sprays him with pepper spray to escape. He later sues for battery. 

Sarah can successfully argue self-defense.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

The self-defense defense would be valid if Sarah had a reasonable belief that she was facing an imminent threat of harm. Given the circumstances (a man asking for bus money in a dark alley), it is unreasonable for Sarah to believe she was in imminent danger to use pepper spray against the man.

Mike convinces Sarah to engage in a sparring match by telling her that the gloves they use are the most popular brand among professional fighters, but in reality, they are not. Sarah gets injured when Mike punches her in the nose, and she sues for battery. 

Mike can successfully argue that Sarah’s consent was valid.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

Misrepresentation of non-essential aspects of an interaction (like the popularity of the brand of gloves) does not invalidate consent. For Sarah’s consent to be invalid, the misrepresentation would need to involve an essential aspect of the encounter, such as the nature of the activity itself. Since Sarah consented to sparring, her consent remains valid despite the misrepresentation.

Lisa agrees to participate in an illegal street race with Kevin. During the race, Kevin swerves and crashes into Lisa’s car, causing injury. Lisa sues for battery. 

Kevin can successfully use the defense of consent.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

Consent to an illegal act is not a valid defense to a tort claim. Even though Lisa participated willingly, the fact that the activity was illegal renders her consent ineffective. Kevin cannot use Lisa's consent to the street race as a defense to battery.

While attending an annual community-organized snowball fight, Jack throws a snowball at Ava without warning, hitting her in the face and causing injury. Ava sues for battery. 

Jack can successfully argue consent.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

In the context of community customs, implied consent can be inferred from participation in activities, like attending the snowball fight. A reasonable person participating in such an event would expect snowballs to be thrown without specific warnings. Therefore, Jack can successfully argue that Ava’s participation in the event implied her consent to being hit by a snowball.

While walking through a park, Greg sees a stranger, Matt, getting into a heated argument with another person, Steve. Fearing that Steve might hit Matt, Greg punches Steve to protect Matt. Steve sues Greg for battery. 

Greg can successfully argue defense of others.

• True

• False

Answer explanation

For the defense of others to apply, there must be an imminent threat of force. Greg’s intervention was premature, as no physical attack had occurred, and the mere fact that the argument was heated is not sufficient to justify using force. There must be a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent, which wasn't clearly present here.