👀
Torts • Defenses to Intentional Torts
TORT#017
Legal Definition
One may use reasonable force to prevent a tort being committed against their real or personal property, but one must first make a request to desist, unless it would clearly be futile or dangerous.
Use of force is also proper in hot pursuit of another after being tortiously dispossessed.
Force that causes death or serious bodily harm is not allowed.
Use of force is also proper in hot pursuit of another after being tortiously dispossessed.
Force that causes death or serious bodily harm is not allowed.
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. Defense of Property is a valid defense.
Generally speaking, the law values human life and safety more than it does property. However, the law understands that people have a strong interest in protecting their possessions and real property. For that reason, in some circumstances, physical force is allowed as long as it isn't extreme or lethal.
Generally speaking, the law values human life and safety more than it does property. However, the law understands that people have a strong interest in protecting their possessions and real property. For that reason, in some circumstances, physical force is allowed as long as it isn't extreme or lethal.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam invites Bob over to his house. Bob see's one of Sam's expensive watches, grabs it in front of Sam, and runs out of the door. Sam chases after Bob, catches up, and violently tackles Bob, knocking him to the ground. Result: Sam has a valid claim for defense of property because he was in hot pursuit of Bob after he stole the watch.
Hypo 2: Sam sees Bob walking down the street wearing a watch that Sam recognizes as his own, which was recently stolen. Sam violently tackles Bob, knocking him to the ground. Result: Sam has no valid claim for defense of property.
Hypo 2: Sam sees Bob walking down the street wearing a watch that Sam recognizes as his own, which was recently stolen. Sam violently tackles Bob, knocking him to the ground. Result: Sam has no valid claim for defense of property.
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 express consent not valid?
When is self-defense proper?
When may an actor recapture a chattel?
