0

Defenses to Torts

Description: This quiz will test your knowledge of the various defenses to torts.
Number of Questions: 15
Created by:
Tags: torts defenses
Attempted 0/15 Correct 0 Score 0

Which of the following is not a defense to a tort?

  1. Consent

  2. Self-defense

  3. Necessity

  4. Statute of limitations


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The statute of limitations is not a defense to a tort, but rather a procedural bar to bringing a lawsuit.

In the defense of consent, the defendant must show that:

  1. The plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly agreed to the conduct that caused the injury.

  2. The plaintiff was mentally incompetent at the time of the conduct.

  3. The defendant was acting in self-defense.

  4. The defendant was acting under duress or coercion.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

In the defense of consent, the defendant must show that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly agreed to the conduct that caused the injury.

In the defense of self-defense, the defendant must show that:

  1. The defendant reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of being harmed.

  2. The defendant used reasonable force to defend themselves.

  3. The defendant was acting in defense of another person.

  4. All of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of self-defense, the defendant must show that they reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of being harmed, that they used reasonable force to defend themselves, and that they were acting in defense of another person.

In the defense of necessity, the defendant must show that:

  1. They were faced with a choice of two evils and chose the lesser evil.

  2. They acted to protect their own life or the life of another person.

  3. They acted to prevent serious harm to property.

  4. All of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of necessity, the defendant must show that they were faced with a choice of two evils and chose the lesser evil, that they acted to protect their own life or the life of another person, and that they acted to prevent serious harm to property.

Which of the following is not a defense to a defamation claim?

  1. Truth

  2. Privilege

  3. Consent

  4. Statute of limitations


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

Consent is not a defense to a defamation claim.

In the defense of truth, the defendant must show that:

  1. The statement is literally true.

  2. The statement is substantially true.

  3. The statement is true in its context.

  4. All of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of truth, the defendant must show that the statement is literally true, substantially true, and true in its context.

In the defense of privilege, the defendant must show that:

  1. The statement was made in a judicial proceeding.

  2. The statement was made in a legislative proceeding.

  3. The statement was made in an executive proceeding.

  4. All of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of privilege, the defendant must show that the statement was made in a judicial proceeding, a legislative proceeding, or an executive proceeding.

Which of the following is not a defense to a negligence claim?

  1. Contributory negligence

  2. Comparative negligence

  3. Assumption of risk

  4. Statute of limitations


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The statute of limitations is not a defense to a negligence claim.

In the defense of contributory negligence, the defendant must show that:

  1. The plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for their own safety.

  2. The plaintiff's negligence was a direct and proximate cause of their injuries.

  3. The plaintiff's negligence was greater than the defendant's negligence.

  4. All of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of contributory negligence, the defendant must show that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for their own safety, that the plaintiff's negligence was a direct and proximate cause of their injuries, and that the plaintiff's negligence was greater than the defendant's negligence.

In the defense of comparative negligence, the defendant must show that:

  1. The plaintiff's negligence was a direct and proximate cause of their injuries.

  2. The plaintiff's negligence was greater than the defendant's negligence.

  3. The plaintiff's negligence was equal to the defendant's negligence.

  4. None of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of comparative negligence, the defendant does not need to show that the plaintiff's negligence was a direct and proximate cause of their injuries, that the plaintiff's negligence was greater than the defendant's negligence, or that the plaintiff's negligence was equal to the defendant's negligence.

In the defense of assumption of risk, the defendant must show that:

  1. The plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of injury.

  2. The plaintiff was aware of the risk of injury and chose to proceed anyway.

  3. The plaintiff's assumption of risk was reasonable.

  4. All of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of assumption of risk, the defendant must show that the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of injury, that the plaintiff was aware of the risk of injury and chose to proceed anyway, and that the plaintiff's assumption of risk was reasonable.

Which of the following is not a defense to a strict liability claim?

  1. Act of God

  2. Unavoidable accident

  3. Assumption of risk

  4. Statute of limitations


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

Assumption of risk is not a defense to a strict liability claim.

In the defense of act of God, the defendant must show that:

  1. The injury was caused by a natural event that could not have been prevented by human intervention.

  2. The natural event was the sole cause of the injury.

  3. The defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent the injury.

  4. All of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of act of God, the defendant must show that the injury was caused by a natural event that could not have been prevented by human intervention, that the natural event was the sole cause of the injury, and that the defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent the injury.

In the defense of unavoidable accident, the defendant must show that:

  1. The injury was caused by an accident that could not have been prevented by human intervention.

  2. The accident was the sole cause of the injury.

  3. The defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent the accident.

  4. All of the above.


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

In the defense of unavoidable accident, the defendant must show that the injury was caused by an accident that could not have been prevented by human intervention, that the accident was the sole cause of the injury, and that the defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent the accident.

Which of the following is not a defense to a battery claim?

  1. Self-defense

  2. Defense of others

  3. Consent

  4. Statute of limitations


Correct Option: D
Explanation:

The statute of limitations is not a defense to a battery claim.

- Hide questions