👀
Torts • Defenses to Intentional Torts
TORT#015
Legal Definition
When a person reasonably believes they are being—or are about to be—attacked, they may use such force as is reasonably necessary to repel the attack and protect against injury.
Traditionally, one has no duty to retreat; however, under some modern views, one has a duty to retreat before using deadly force so long as it can be done safely—unless it is in their own home.
Self-defense is generally not available to the initial aggressor, unless the initial victim escalates the attack or there is a break and the original attack has ceased.
Traditionally, one has no duty to retreat; however, under some modern views, one has a duty to retreat before using deadly force so long as it can be done safely—unless it is in their own home.
Self-defense is generally not available to the initial aggressor, unless the initial victim escalates the attack or there is a break and the original attack has ceased.
Plain English Explanation
Sometimes it's okay to commit an intentional tort if you have a valid defense. Whenever you see someone commit an intentional tort, you should look to see if they may have a valid defense. Self-defense is a valid defense.
The law supports your right to defend yourself against violence from others, within reason. Reasonable levels of self-defense, under reasonable circumstances, are fine. On exams, you will generally need to identify (and argue) what is reasonable under the facts provided.
The law supports your right to defend yourself against violence from others, within reason. Reasonable levels of self-defense, under reasonable circumstances, are fine. On exams, you will generally need to identify (and argue) what is reasonable under the facts provided.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob tries to slap Spiderman, not realizing Spiderman has spidey-sense. As Bob is swinging his arm towards Spiderman, Spiderman blocks the slap and punches Bob in the face. Result: Spiderman committed a battery against Bob, however, he has a valid self-defense claim because he had reason to believe that Bob was about to slap him, and acted reasonably to repel Bob's attack.
Hypo 2: Bob is a bit anxious and nervous while riding the public subway. A little old lady sitting next to Bob reached into her purse to grab her glasses. Bob, fearing that the old lady is reaching for a knife, smacks her purse away from her hands. Result: Bob has committed a battery against the old lady, and he has no valid claim for self-defense because it was unreasonable for him to believe that the little old lady was going to harm him.
Hypo 3 Bob sees Sam at the mall one day and punches Sam in the face. Sam pulls out a gun and shoots Bob in the face. Result: Sam has no valid self-defense claim. In most jurisdictions, self-defense does not include use of deadly force unless a person reasonably believes they must in order to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. As much as it sucks to get sucker punched in the face, it does not justify lethal self-defense.
Hypo 4 Bob sees Sam at the mall one day and punches Sam in the face. Sam runs off. Moments later, as Bob is walking to his car, Sam jumps out of the bushes and attacks Bob. Bob wrestles Sam to the ground and punches him in the face. Result: Bob's initial attack against Sam was a battery. Had Sam immediately responded physically, he would have a valid claim for self-defense. But because Sam waited and attacked Bob at a later point, Sam has no claim for self-defense since he re-engaged Bob. In fact, because he re-engaged Bob, Bob's response to Sam's attack would be justified as self-defense. The purpose of self-defense is to justify a victim's attempts to protect themselves, not keep score as to who gets to hurt who later.
Hypo 2: Bob is a bit anxious and nervous while riding the public subway. A little old lady sitting next to Bob reached into her purse to grab her glasses. Bob, fearing that the old lady is reaching for a knife, smacks her purse away from her hands. Result: Bob has committed a battery against the old lady, and he has no valid claim for self-defense because it was unreasonable for him to believe that the little old lady was going to harm him.
Hypo 3 Bob sees Sam at the mall one day and punches Sam in the face. Sam pulls out a gun and shoots Bob in the face. Result: Sam has no valid self-defense claim. In most jurisdictions, self-defense does not include use of deadly force unless a person reasonably believes they must in order to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. As much as it sucks to get sucker punched in the face, it does not justify lethal self-defense.
Hypo 4 Bob sees Sam at the mall one day and punches Sam in the face. Sam runs off. Moments later, as Bob is walking to his car, Sam jumps out of the bushes and attacks Bob. Bob wrestles Sam to the ground and punches him in the face. Result: Bob's initial attack against Sam was a battery. Had Sam immediately responded physically, he would have a valid claim for self-defense. But because Sam waited and attacked Bob at a later point, Sam has no claim for self-defense since he re-engaged Bob. In fact, because he re-engaged Bob, Bob's response to Sam's attack would be justified as self-defense. The purpose of self-defense is to justify a victim's attempts to protect themselves, not keep score as to who gets to hurt who later.
Related Concepts
In assessing a tort against property, what is a private necessity?
In assessing a tort against property, what is a public necessity?
In assessing a tort against property, what is necessity?
What is consent and its limitations?
What is the shopkeeper's privilege?
When is consent implied?
When is consent implied by law?
When is defense of others proper?
When is defense of property proper?
When is express consent not valid?
When may an actor recapture a chattel?
