IV. Defenses: Overriding the Choices of Others | emasters | November 20, 2014

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

IV. Defenses: Overriding the Choices of Others

Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: emasters Show/Hide

Nearly any defined pattern of wrongdoing is likely to admit exceptions. That’s in part what can make it so difficult to simply stipulate by legal text ahead of time what behavior is allowed and what is not. But we can try. Efforts to taxonomize carve-outs from legal rules or standards can be worked into the prima facie – “at first glance” – case for a wrong. For example, we might start by defining a battery as an “…unconsented touching… .” Exceptions can also be enshrined as affirmative defenses: all the requirements of a prima facie case might be met, but a defense may then be invoked against it. In this configuration, a battery could be a mere “touching,” but a case for damages would be derailed if the defendant can show consent by the plaintiff. Is there any meaningful difference between defining a tort in a way that captures exceptions in the definition itself, compared to a simpler definition accompanied by a set of defenses?

Here we look at some of the most common defenses to a range of intentional torts, and their limits. When, for example, should consent of the victim not be enough to eliminate liability for a wrongdoer? What happens when someone hurts someone else in an act of self-defense, but has made a mistake about the intentions of the person acted against? At what point should one’s personal or property rights yield to an emergency in which someone else’s life or property is at stake? This last question also offers us an opportunity to think in a more nuanced way about “plaintiffs” and “defendants” – in many situations the parties are interacting with one another, and each is prepared to claim wrong by the other. A court, then, might find each party as both plaintiff and defendant against the other, and one could imagine a range of actions that ought to be demanded or incented in order to reach a just outcome. Part of the nuance here is to recognize that the law can indeed alternatively “demand” and “incent”: the first, even in civil tort, could be backed up by a threat of jail time or crippling fines; the second, imposed as a carefully calibrated “cost of doing business.” By charging the “right” amount of damages for a harm, is it sensible to then speak of achieving the proper – “efficient,” even – level or amount of such harm in society?

EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST

Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:

MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (4/4 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/4 playlist item notes are private)
  1. 1 Show/Hide More IV.A. Consent
    Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: emasters
    1. 1.1 Show/Hide More Hart v. Geysel--"The Fatal Prize Fight"
      Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: emasters
      Should a tort be recognized when both parties agreed to engage in harmful contact?
    2. 1.2 Show/Hide More Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals--"The No-Foul-But-Severe-Harm Case"
      Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: emasters
      Does the nature of a rough-and-tumble activity like professional football excuse potential tort liability arising from the game?
    1. 2.1 Show/Hide More Courvoisier v. Raymond--"The Mistaken Self-Defender"
      Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: emasters
      Should the common law excuse harmful contact made in self-defense? If so, how do we decide which harmful acts fall within the scope of self-defense?
    1. 3.1 Show/Hide More Ploof v. Putnam--"The Private Island in the Storm"
      Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: emasters
      In order to accommodate plaintiff's need to protect his/her own life or property, should society privilege him/her with the right to interfere with another's property?
    2. 3.2 Show/Hide More Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.--"The Boat That Slammed Against the Dock"
      Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: emasters
      Should defendants be privileged in protecting their own property at the expense of another’s property? If so, does the court “demand” anything from the plaintiff in exchange for the privilege?
    1. 4.1 Show/Hide More Barbara A. v. John G.--"The Lying, Impregnating Attorney"
      Original Creator: Jonathan Zittrain Current Version: emasters
      How should the court evaluate defenses that come from different sources of law?
Close

Playlist Information

November 20, 2014

Author Stats

emasters

CALI

Other Playlists by emasters

Find Items

Search below to find items, then drag and drop items onto playlists you own. To add items to nested playlists, you must first expand those playlists.

SEARCH
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large