Consent plays a crucial role in intentional tort defenses. It can be express or implied, but must be voluntary and within agreed-upon boundaries. Understanding consent's nuances is key to grasping how it impacts liability in intentional tort cases.

Intent is another vital element in intentional tort claims. It focuses on the defendant's mental state when committing the act, not necessarily the specific harm caused. General intent applies to most torts, while specific intent is required for some.

Consent as a Defense to Intentional Torts

Consent as intentional tort defense

• Functions as complete defense against intentional tort claims
  • Defendant not liable if plaintiff consented to conduct at issue
• Can be communicated through express or implied means
• Requires voluntary and freely given agreement
  • Invalid if obtained through duress, fraud, or from person lacking capacity
• Limited in scope to specific conduct agreed upon by parties
  • Exceeding boundaries of consent may result in liability for defendant

Express vs implied consent

• Express consent communicated clearly and directly through words or actions
  • Signing liability waiver
  • Verbally agreeing to participate in specific activity
• Implied consent inferred from plaintiff's conduct or situational context
  • Participating in inherently dangerous activities like contact sports implies consent to certain risks
  • Social norms and customs may imply consent in some circumstances (shaking hands)
• Defendant carries burden of proving plaintiff's consent to conduct at issue

Intent in Intentional Tort Claims

Intent requirement in tort claims

• Critical element in establishing intentional tort liability
• Requires defendant's intent to commit act causing harm to plaintiff
  • Specific resulting harm need not be intended
• Can be proven through direct evidence or inferred from circumstances
• Transferred intent doctrine extends liability
  • Defendant intending tort against one person but unintentionally harming another treated as intending harm to unintended victim

General vs specific intent

• General intent requires defendant's intent to commit act in question
  • Specific consequences of act need not be intended
  • Applies to most intentional torts (battery, false imprisonment)
• Specific intent requires defendant's intent for both act and resulting consequences
  • Applies to certain intentional torts (assault, trespass to land)
  • Assault requires intent to cause apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact
  • Trespass to land requires intent to enter plaintiff's property without permission