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

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 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.

Consent is not a defense to a defamation claim.

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 the statement was made in a judicial proceeding, a legislative proceeding, or an executive proceeding.

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

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 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 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.

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

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 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.

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