When a plaintiff accuses a defendant of an intentional tort, it is the defendant's responsibility to identify any justifications for his actions that may excuse him from liability for the plaintiff's injuries. In tort law there are several privileges that a defendant may refer to in order to avoid liability. It is up to the courts to decide whether the defendant's privilege excuses him from liability by determining whether the defendant had consent, permission by the plaintiff, or whether the plaintiff was defending himself, his property, or another person. If the defendant is able to establish privilege, then it is said that he has not committed a tortious act and he is not held liable.

Mistake:

In some cases, a defendant may be able to avoid liability for a tort even if the tort was committed due to a mistake of the facts. A mistake differs from an accident in that the defendant's actions were intended, but they are based on an erroneous belief by the defendant that his conduct would be justified. If the defendant can establish privilege and it is proven that his actions are a result of a justifiable motive, he may be able to avoid liability. 

The mistake privilege is applicable in certain defenses such as the right to defend oneself even if the defense is based on a genuine mistake and the person was not actually in danger. The mistake made must be reasonable, in that another person in the same situation would most likely have acted in a similar manner as the defendant. 

Consent:

When a tort is committed, the plaintiff's consent may excuse the defendant from liability. Consent occurs when a plaintiff displays a willingness to participate in the defendant's conduct and can be manifested through words or actions. Consent will only excuse liability under certain conditions. If the plaintiff lacks the capacity to consent, is coerced into consenting, or consents under false pretenses, then it is not a valid defense. 

Capacity to consent is effected by the plaintiff's legal age, mental capability, and any abnormality due to an altered state of mind or mental disease or defect. A person's actions can sometimes be justified without a plaintiff's consent in the case of an emergency.

Self-Defense:

Tort law recognizes the personal right to defend oneself when attacked, using reasonable force. Reasonable force means that a person must defend himself using a justifiably proportionate level of force to that of the attacker. Self defense applies only to the threat of immediate harm and does not excuse the defendant from extracting revenge on the plaintiff. 

Excessive force is not excused and deadly force should only be used as a means of self defense if one is threatened with deadly force and is without a means of escape. A person is not required to find a means of escape if he is attacked in his own home and may use deadly force to protect himself against a stranger whom he believes intends to seriously injure of kill him. 

If the defendant has reasonable belief that he absolutely must use force in order to prevent injury to himself then he may not be held liable for the tort of assault and battery against the plaintiff.

Defense of Others:

Similar to self defense, the defense of others can also be used by a defendant to justify assaulting a plaintiff. In order to claim this defense, the defendant must believe that there is a definite need for intervention, and the person who is aided must have a legitimate claim to self defense. 

The defendant must prove that he used only a reasonable amount of force in order to protect the victim. Also, the defendant must actually witness the plaintiff's attack on the victim; he cannot be informed by the victim, then intentionally seek out the plaintiff to exact revenge. In the defense of others, mistake by the defendant is generally; the victim must have actually been in real danger. If the defendant is able to prove these components, then he would not be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

Defense of Property:

Tort law allows a person to use a certain amount of physical force in order to protect his premises and physical property from imminent harm. In order to avoid liability, the defendant must prove that he actually owns the property being defended, and that the property is in real and imminent danger. An owner of property is generally allowed to use more physical force when protecting his dwelling against a trespasser rather than some other physical property. 

The defendant should use a proportionate amount of force when defending his property. Deadly force can only be used when defending one's dwelling against a trespasser whom the owner believes intends to seriously injure or kill. Deadly force may never be used to protect against other forms of property. In the event of a mistake, the defense of property justification can still sometimes be used if the courts conclude that a reasonable person in the same situation would act similarly. Contact a property lawyer to review your case.

 

Recapture of Chattels:

Just as defense of property is used to avoid liability for a plaintiff's injury, a defendant is also entitled to regain possession of stolen property, called recapture of chattels. The term chattel refers to any article of movable personal property. The defense of chattels is somewhat more restrictive than other defenses. 

If a person mistakenly believes that his property has been stolen, he cannot claim this defense based on a mistake of the facts. A person must act immediately in order to reclaim his property; if a substantial amount of time has passed, he will be held liable for any injury to the plaintiff. 

Recapture of chattels can only be claimed if the property was wrongfully taken from the defendant and he did not willingly give it up. In the case of an easement, the defendant cannot claim this defense because the plaintiff has a legitimate legal claim over the property.   

Recapture of Land:

The recapture of land defense is most frequently present in landlord-tenant disputes. It is generally held by the courts that no privilege exists for a landowner to forcibly enter the tenant's premises or interfere with the tenant's person or property. Forcible entry refers to the damages caused by the defendant while entering the property, such as a broken lock or a knocked down door. The defendant will be liable for these damages, and in most cases, is guilty of the tort of trespass. The rules concerning property rights have changed over time, but it is no longer held that the defendant is permitted to recapture his property by the use of force.

Necessity:

Necessity is a tort defense that is used under unusual, emergency circumstances where a defendant injures a plaintiff in order to prevent a greater harm. The defendant must prove that the harm inflicted on the plaintiff's person or property was less than the harm that was prevented. 

The greater harm must be imminent in nature and cannot have been created by the defendant himself, meaning it would occur regardless of the defendant's presence. There are generally two categories of emergencies: public necessity and private necessity. If the greater harm effects only the plaintiff or a small number of citizens than it is of private necessity; if it effects the public as a whole, a large number of citizens, then it is of public necessity.

Legal Process:

An officer of the law is protected by the legal system when making an arrest, permitting that he properly followed the legal process. If he acts properly and within the limitations of this defense, then he is not liable for any injuries caused to the plaintiff. If a mistake is made by the courts in issuing a search or arrest warrant, the the officer is generally not held responsible for this mistake unless it can be found that he reasonably should have been aware of the mistake. 

An officer should know the basic characteristics of a warrant, such as that a crime and specific individual to arrested must be name on the warrant. If the warrant appears valid on its face, then the officer will be protected from liability under the legal process defense.

Arrest w/out a Warrant:

Unlawful arrest is a tort that occurs when a person is improperly restrained and denied freedom of movement by another who claims to be justified in acting under the authority of the law. A warrant for arrest is a court order which permits a police officer to arrest an individual. In some cases, an officer and a private citizen can make an arrest without a warrant. 

If an officer or a citizen witnesses a felony or a breach of the peace, or believes that one is about to occur, the officer may conduct an unwarranted arrest. An officer has more flexibility in making an arrest without a warrant then a private citizen does. A citizen must be absolutely sure that a felony or breach of the peace has occurred in order to make a citizen's arrest. 

If there was a past breach of peace, neither a citizen or an officer has the right to make an unwarranted arrest. A person must use reasonable force in making an arrest; if excessive force is used he will not be justified in claiming this defense.  

Discipline:

Based on a person's status or profession, he may be entitled to use reasonable force in order to discipline others. If a person such as a teacher, parent, or military official commits a tort which results in injury to a plaintiff, as long as certain conditions are met, the defense of discipline will excuse him from liability. 

The defendant must use only a reasonable degree of force when disciplining the wrongdoer. Force that exceeds the nature of the wrongdoer's offense is not permitted. This defense often arises in cases where parents or teachers use force to discipline children. 

The disciplinary action must be found to promote the child's welfare and cannot be considered unusually cruel or forceful. If these limitations are met, then the defendant will not be liable for the plaintiff injuries. 

Tort law recognizes the personal right to defend oneself when attacked using reasonable force. Self defense is normally applied exclusively to the intentional tort of assault, and battery, but can also be used in false imprisonment cases. This defense is used by a defendant to justify his actions. When a person is attacked or threatened he has the right to cause harm to the attacker in order to protect himself under certain conditions. 

Although a person reserves the right to protect himself, once the threat of danger is removed, the privilege of self defense is also removed. A person cannot attack another to exact revenge or for any other reason besides the threat of immediate harm. This concept is usually familiar to the average person: if you are being attacked you have the personal right to exert approximately the same amount of force to protect yourself from injury. 

Similarly, if you are being falsely imprisoned, you may use force to escape the unjust confinement. If you are then sued for injuring that person, you may use the defense of self defense to justify your actions.

The level of force used to protect oneself must be proportionate to the attacker’s level of threat. A defendant can no longer claim self defense once he has used force above and beyond that of the plaintiff’s original attack. If excessive force, force that does not match the level of threat, is used to defend oneself, then a tort is committed. In this case each party may have the right to claim torts against one another. 

Deadly force should only be used as a means of self defense if one is threatened with deadly force and is without a means of escape. Deadly force is no always a clear issue and usually relies heavily on the facts of the case. If an opportunity to escape is available, a person should make every attempt to remove himself from the situation before resulting to deadly force. However, this is not usually the case if the victim is attacked in his own home. 

The victim is not required to flee from his own property. Sometimes, this is referred to as the castle doctrine and it implies that a person may use any amount of force, including deadly force, in order to prevent an intruder from injuring him inside his own home.  

In order for someone to use self defense as a means of justifying his conduct, the actor must have a reasonable belief that he absolutely needed use force in order to prevent injury to himself. Reasonable belief means that any reasonable person would assume, based on the original attacker’s actions, that he is in immediate danger. 

Even if the defendant was mistaken and there was no actual danger present, he is still able to claim self defense. Retaliation and revenge is never part of self defense; this defense is meant only to protect those who are opposing an immediate attacker. 

Domestic Relations is an evolving area of Tort Law which deals with a family's inner workings.  The evolution of Domestic Relations Tort has not only shaped the way that family's may collect for damages or interference to the family unit itself resulting from tortious conduct; it has shaped the way husbands, wives, children and legal guardians are viewed as legal entities.  

 

 

Originally, under common law, children and wives were treated as chattels and functioned under a man's proprietary rights.  In the 1900's, several advances in Family Law provided for the legal rights of women and children to act as distinct legal entities from their husbands/fathers.

 

 

Torts in the Family: 

 

 

In early family law, tort law recognized a similar right to sue much like Secondary Liability, in which a superior may act on behalf of his or her inferior/subordinate. This application of proprietary rights to family law cases allowed husbands and fathers to recover damages for injuries to members of his family from tortfeasors.  The grounds by which a husband or father could recover for his family included a loss of "services" from his wife or child.  The "services" therein usually included household duties such as cleaning, child care, companionship and other "marital responsibilities" no longer available from the wife or child.

 

 

Vicarious Liability: 

 

 

The court system held the family unit as a collective identity, despite the separate legal identities of the parties therein. The interests and relations of the family unit are considered proprietary to a degree and "by right".  Thus, any interference or intervention that alters, changes, infringes or jeopardizes the family unit is potentially tortious interference in family law. Interference with Family Relations, importantly, can take place between members of the respective family unit.  For example, a husband may be liable for Interference with Family Relations with regard to the relations of his wife and child.

 

 

Interference with Family Relations:

 

 

An especially difficult topic of tort law is that of family torts in domestic relations. The reason for this being that the structure of the family itself and its workings are often at the core of the arguments put forth by the plaintiff and defendant.  Torts in the family may relate to tortious action between husband and wife, or parent and child.  Tort in the family may also include vicarious liability and negligence on behalf of the parent or legal guardian for tortious actions committed by a minor under the legal guardianship of an adult party

 

 

Injuries to Family Members: 

 

 

Vicarious Liability is a secondary liability that renders superior parties responsible for the actions of their subordinate parties. Torts raised against legal subordinates thus are vicariously transferred to the superior party for litigation purposes.  In Domestic Relations tort, this normally means that parents are responsible for tortious offenses committed by their children.  This Vicarious Liability also extends toward Legal Guardians, who are vicariously liable for the tortious actions of their juvenile wards.

There are many deficiencies in liability insurance, including its utilization as a loophole for the accused. When individuals know ahead of time that they have adequate liability insurance, they may not be as cautious as they should be. There are many people that claim that Doctors do not fear lawsuits for malpractice, because they know that they have adequate liability insurance coverage.

 

 

 Doctors are aware that their rates may go up with each tort law case, or that their coverage may be dropped by the insurance company, but they also know that they are protected if they should take part in an action that has a negative outcome for another. There are many deficiencies in liability insurance that can greatly effect both the accused and the victim in a tort law case 

 

 

One of the major deficiencies of in liability insurance is that it makes it easy for victims to be compensated 

 

 

Cases in tort law are often settled before a verdict is ever reached. In fact, some tort laws cases never even reach the courtroom because liability insurance companies decide to settle out of court. The deficiencies in liability insurance and its applications to tort law cases, can be detrimental for everyone involved in the case. In some cases, liability insurance companies are more powerful, and have more access to money in order to efficiently fight the court case, even when the accusations are valid.

 

 

Tort law highlights the many deficiencies in liability insurance. Unfortunately, tort law cases do not always involve a fair judgement of compensation for individuals because of caps placed on the judgement. In addition, the accused, even when innocent, often settle out of court to avoid a lengthy and expensive court case.

In tort law cases, liability insurance is vital for the accused to protect their assets. Those that are found guilty without the benefit of liability insurance, often find that it takes a lifetime to pay off any judgments made against them. In fact, the courts can garnish wages and take money from bank accounts, when the accused do not meet their payments. Liability insurance is however, fairly common. 

Most drivers are required to carry liability insurance in case some one is injured in an accident; including the driver, any occupants, or those driving in another car in which they are involved in an accident with. Liability insurance offers protection against tort law cases, including legal representation in such cases. Malpractice insurance is a specific type of liability insurance which is utilized by those that are employed in the medical field. 

Regardless of the specific type of liability insurance, the purpose remains the same. Should an individual, or business, commit some act which causes harm to another, by accident or willfully, liability insurance protects them if there is a judgement made against them.

Liability insurance is a means for individuals or businesses to protect themselves in cases where they are accused of some wrongdoing that caused harm to another. For professionals, there are specific types of insurance. For example, doctors carry malpractice insurance. That insurance can protect Doctors should one of their actions result in injury or death for a patient. For individuals, there are other types of liability insurance. For example, drivers generally have auto insurance coverage. 

Each driver has coverage for many factors, including collision and liability. That liability insurance would cover the driver should one of their actions result in an accident that causes harm to another. There are a variety of ways that victims can seek compensation in liability cases. Generally, the tort case is heard in court. In court, a determination of guilt or innocence will be made. In cases where the accused are found guilty, they may be required to provide compensation for the victims. Compensation would likely be monetary, but not necessarily. Some cases are also settled before they even reach the court.

The purpose of liability insurance is to protect individuals and businesses from tort cases in which the liability for a negative outcome is questioned. Liability insurance can help the accused meet the financial burden of any judgement incurred against them. Without liability insurance, individuals found guilty in tort cases, often incur a large financial debt, and they are sometimes unable to meet the financial burden on their own. 

The reason that an accused person may receive a judgement against them, is to provide compensation to the victim. Compensation is only awarded when it is clear that the accused acted in a manner that caused harm, injury or death to another. Compensations is meant to provide for the needs of the victim, such as medical bills and loss of income. 

In addition, compensation is meant to cover mental anguish and other psychological issues that may have resulted form the incident or incidences. Compensation is sometimes not monetary. Many times, victims want the accused to admit guilt so that the victim can enjoy vindication. By having the accused admit guilt, the victim and the courts, hope to prevent similar occurrences in the future by that individual, as well as by others. Compensation awards are meant as a lesson to others, so that they do not commit acts that may harm another.

There are many deficiencies in liability insurance and in tort law cases. First, the victims can no always afford proper legal representation, especially when they are facing big insurance companies with unlimited resources. There are also cases in which the alleged victims take part in a frivolous lawsuit in hopes of getting compensation judgements, even though no real harm was done. For that reason, the courts in many jurisdictions have placed a cap, or maximum on allowable awards. 

In contrast, the accused may have a benefit in tort liability cases, if they have a liability insurance company representing their case. The liability insurance companies do everything in their power to avoid large payouts, especially when they believe it can be avoided. In some cases, it is cheaper for the accused and the victim, to settle outside of court. Unfortunately, some tort liability cases include settlements even when the accused is obviously innocent. Liability insurance companies may choose to settle simply because it is cheaper than the costs involved with taking the case to court.

Tort liability cases are meant to provide judgements against the accused when they are guilty. Those judgements often involve financial compensation for the victim. Although many jurisdictions now impose a maximum award amount based on the specifics of the case. Victims can at least recover the cost of medical bills and some financial compensation for pain and suffering. Judgements often include full compensation for medical bills, as well as any lost income that resulted from the actions of the accused. 

In some cases, the courts also award financial judgements based on the emotional pain and suffering associated with the incident. The amount of compensation is often considered arbitrary, even when there is a cap on the maximum allowable judgement according to the law. Judgements are meant to show the accused, and other members of society, that certain actions are not acceptable and will be punished.

The American Legal system strives to provide an environment that is fair to both the accused and the victim. The court system is set up in a manner that should disallow frivolous lawsuits and judgement awards based on such cases. However, the American Legal system is famously known as the land of lawsuits. Many citizens sue, even when there has been no actual pain or suffering, simply because they believe the accused wills settle before the case ever reaches court. 

There is a current effort of reform aimed at preventing frivolous lawsuits in the tort courts. In order to achieve that goal, many jurisdictions have placed limits or caps on awards and judgements for specific injuries.Victim advocate groups abhor the practice because there is no flat dollar amount that makes up for injuries such as loss of life or limb. However, those in the reform movement see the limits as the first step in keeping tort law cases fair for the victims and the accused.

In tort cases, victims often receive compensation, including monetary judgments. However, some judgments include other factors such as, the accused, publicly admitting guilt. In most jurisdictions, the courts have placed limits, or judgment ranges, which depend on specific factors found in the case. 

In most cases, victims that sustain injuries receive a judgment which maxes out, regardless of how painful and permanent the injury may be. However, the courts can award other judgments, in addition to the one made for specific bodily injury. For example, the courts may award an additional judgment for the pain and suffering by the victim which resulted from the actions of the guilty party.  

In class action suits, judgments may include a public admittance of guilt by the guilty party. For that reason, class action suits often involve a settlement outside of court, so that the accused company can avoid the public admittance of guilt. Guilt can cause irreparable harm to a companies reputation. If a company believes that they may lose the case, they often settle outside of court.

The courts treat judgments as a means of discouraging similar behavior in the future. Judgments are utilized as a form of punishment against the guilty party. That punishment is meant to discourage others from committing similar acts that cause harm to another. 

However, the system, as it stands now, is often abused. There are many frivolous lawsuits in which the alleged victim simply believes that they have an opportunity to make money through judgments, even when there has been no real harm done. There is a current effort aimed at preventing such lawsuits. The courts aim is to keep the courts as a tool for cases in which real harm was done to the victim.

In tort law cases, liability insurance is vital for the accused to protect their assets. Those that are found guilty without the benefit of liability insurance, often find that it takes a lifetime to pay off any judgment made against them. In fact, the courts can garnish wages and take money from bank accounts, when the accused do not meet their payments. Liability insurance is however, fairly common. 

Most drivers are required to carry liability insurance in case some one is injured in an accident; including the driver, any occupants, or those driving in another car in which they are involved in an accident with. Liability insurance offers protection against tort law cases, including legal representation in such cases. Malpractice insurance is a specific type of liability insurance, which is utilized by those that are employed in the medical field. 

Regardless of the specific type of liability insurance, the purpose remains the same. Should an individual, or business, commit some act which causes harm to another, by accident or willfully, liability insurance protects them if there is a judgement made against them.

Liability insurance is a means for individuals or businesses to protect themselves in cases where they are accused of some wrongdoing that caused harm to another. For professionals, there are specific types of insurance. For example, doctors carry malpractice insurance. That insurance can protect Doctors should one of their actions result in injury or death for a patient. For individuals, there are other types of liability insurance. For example, drivers generally have auto insurance coverage. 

Each driver has coverage for many factors, including collision and liability. That liability insurance would cover the driver should one of their actions result in an accident that causes harm to another. There are a variety of ways that victims can seek compensation in liability cases. Generally, the tort case is heard in court. In court, a determination of guilt or innocence will be made. 

In cases where the accused are found guilty, they may be required to provide compensation for the victims. Compensation would likely be monetary, but not necessarily. Some cases are also settled before they even reach the court.

The purpose of liability insurance is to protect individuals and businesses from tort cases in which the liability for a negative outcome is questioned. Liability insurance can help the accused meet the financial burden of any judgment incurred against them. Without liability insurance, individuals found guilty in tort cases, often incur a large financial debt, and they are sometimes unable to meet the financial burden on their own. 

The reason that an accused person may receive a judgment against them, is to provide compensation to the victim. Compensation is only awarded when it is clear that the accused acted in a manner that caused harm, injury or death to another. Compensations is meant to provide for the needs of the victim, such as medical bills and loss of income. 

In addition, compensation is meant to cover mental anguish and other psychological issues that may have resulted form the incident or incidences. Compensation is sometimes not monetary. Many times, victims want the accused to admit guilt so that the victim can enjoy vindication. By having the accused admit guilt, the victim and the courts, hope to prevent similar occurrences in the future by that individual, as well as by others. Compensation awards are meant as a lesson to others, so that they do not commit acts that may harm another.

There are many deficiencies in liability insurance and in tort law cases. First, the victims can not always afford proper legal representation, especially when they are facing big insurance companies with unlimited resources. There are also cases in which the alleged victims take part in a frivolous lawsuit in hopes of getting compensation judgments, even though no real harm was done. For that reason, the courts in many jurisdictions have placed a cap, or maximum on allowable awards. In contrast, the accused may have a benefit in tort liability cases, if they have a liability insurance company representing their case. 

The liability insurance companies do everything in their power to avoid large payouts, especially when they believe it can be avoided. In some cases, it is cheaper for the accused and the victim, to settle outside of court. Unfortunately, some tort liability cases include settlements even when the accused is obviously innocent. Liability insurance companies may choose to settle simply because it is cheaper than the costs involved with taking the case to court.

Tort liability cases are meant to provide judgments against the accused when they are guilty. Those judgments often involve financial compensation for the victim. Although many jurisdictions now impose a maximum award amount based on the specifics of the case. Victims can at least recover the cost of medical bills and some financial compensation for pain and suffering. Judgments often include full compensation for medical bills, as well as any lost income that resulted from the actions of the accused. 

In some cases, the courts also award financial judgements based on the emotional pain and suffering associated with the incident. The amount of compensation is often considered arbitrary, even when there is a cap on the maximum allowable judgement according to the law. Judgments are meant to show the accused, and other members of society, that certain actions are not acceptable and will be punished.

There are several different defenses in tort law which may excuse a defendant of wrongdoing and prevent him from being held liable for damages to the plaintiff. When a tort is committed, meaning that a defendant’s actions interfered with the plaintiff’s person or property, a plaintiff’s consent will excuse the defendant of the wrongdoing. 

Although a defendant’s conduct may be considered immoral, or harmful, if the plaintiff allows these interferences to occur, then the defendant is not considered to have committed a tort. Consent occurs when a plaintiff displays a willingness to participate in the defendant’s conduct. It can be manifested through words or actions. 

The defendant has the right to infer consent from the plaintiff’s actions the way any reasonable man would. In some cases, silence and inaction may manifest consent when it is reasonable to assume that a person would speak or act if he objected to the defendant’s actions. Also, if a behavior was previously consented in the past, the defendant may continue to regard this behavior as acceptable until he is told otherwise. 

For example, if the defendant has been allowed on prior occasions to enter the plaintiff’s home and has no reason to believe that this is no longer allowed, is not considered guilty of the tort of trespassing.

However, consent may not always excuse a defendant of liability. Sometimes consent is ineffective under certain conditions. If the plaintiff lacks the capacity to consent, is coerced into consenting, or consents under false pretenses, the consent is not valid as a defense to the tort. There is also certain types of conduct that the law considers no person reasonably able to consent to.

Incapacity exists in the cases of infancy, intoxication, or mental incompetence. The law also recognizes that a person may have the capacity to consent to some specific types of conduct, but not to others. One who is of legal age is generally assumed able to consent to all types of conduct unless this person possesses some kind of abnormality that the defendant is aware of. 

The abnormality may be temporary, such as a person who is under the influence of a prescription drug, alcohol, or in a extremely tense, stressful situation. Or the incapacity may be due to a permanent factor such as a mental disease or defect. This incapacity must interfere with the plaintiff’s ability to weigh the benefits and consequences of the defendant’s suggested conduct.

The consent of someone who is considered incapable may be obtained by that person’s legal guardian. When the courts are deciding a case in which a legal guardian consented on behalf of another, it must be determined whether that guardian had the legal right to do so and if the decision was in the best interest of the incapacitated individual. 

This consent issue often arises in cases of medical procedures in which patients are unable to consent to a specific surgery that may be necessary to save their life. 

A person’s actions can sometimes be justified without a plaintiff’s consent in the case of an emergency. A doctor has the right to offer medical attention to a patient who has been injured in an accident, without consent, under certain conditions. 

The person must be incapacitated, unable to make a decision, and without the aid of a person that is legally able to consent on their behalf. If time is of the essence, meaning that the doctor must act quickly, and it can be assumed that the person would normally consent, the doctor is legally able to attend to this person without consent. 

Consent is used by a defendant in order to negate responsibility for a tort. If a plaintiff consented to the defendant’s actions, as long as that person is mentally capable and did not consent due to misrepresentation of the facts, no tort is committed.  

Tort law allows for a person to use a certain amount of physical force in order to protect his premises or physical property from imminent harm. A defendant that would normally be guilty of a tort may use defense of property to justify his actions. 

Similar to the components of self defense, in order for his or her defense to be successful, the defendant must prove that their property was in, or he believed it to be in, real danger, and that he did not use excessive force in its defense. In order to defend the property, the defendant must show that he is in legal possession and ownership of that property.   

The law of torts allows a defendant more freedom in using physical force to protect his dwelling rather than other physical property. Trespassing refers to when an intruder enters a structure or area where he knows he is not privileged to do so. 

The owner of the property must first warn the trespasser by asking him to remove himself from the property, unless the owner believes that this request would be useless or dangerous. The owner is then entitled to use force that any reasonable person would use to defend the dwelling.

Deadly force in certain states, may be used if an intruder enters the property and the owner has good reason to believe that this intruder intends to harm him or a family member within the dwelling. This deadly force can only be used if the owner believes the intruder will kill or seriously injure someone. However, deadly force can never be used to protect personal property other than a home. 

If a person's car is being stolen, for example, the owner may use reasonable physical force to prevent this, but never deadly force. The defendant must use reasonable physical force, meaning that it is proportionate to the attacker's force or threat of force. 

Most tort law, including the defense of personal property, allows the defendant some leeway in making mistakes. If it can be concluded that a reasonable person in the same position as the defendant would act in a similar way, then it does not matter whether the danger was actually present or the defendant mistook the situation. 

Defense of property can still be used as a defense to justify the defendant's actions as long as the courts decide that a reasonable person would react in a similar way. If the courts decide, however, that the defendant used more force than was necessary to protect his property, then he will be found guilty of a tort.     

The American Legal system, or ALS, has greatly altered the way it handles tort liability. The ALS often considers tort liability cases as a means for people to get compensation.

At its current state, The ALS grant awards in liability cases based on specific factors of the case. In certain tort liability cases there are a range of awards. For example, a person that loses the use of a limb may receive a judgement that falls within a specific range. 

However, there are also awards based on the psychological anguish associated with a case. Often however, the amounts awarded in tort liability cases are considered arbitrary because no amount of money can compensate for cases that involve real pain and suffering.

Regardless of the type of tort case, class action or individual, the ALS is working to ensure that the system is not abused. Tort reform will allow efforts to strive for  a more efficient legal system in which the victims, and the accused can enjoy equal treatment by the law. In addition, frivolous lawsuits will be all but eliminated.