1. Defences to Torts
SLO: I can appreciate the role of tort law in deterring harmful behaviors.
I can appreciate that our legal system and the rule of law are mechanisms for settling wrongs and repairing damage in a non- violent manner.

2. The courts recognize several defences to torts.
In the area of negligence, defences include:
voluntary assumption of risk – the legal principle that a plaintiff may not recover for an injury to which he or she consents; a partial defence to negligence
participation in illegal activities
inevitable accident - an accident that could not have been foreseen or prevented by the due care and diligence of any human being involved in it
contributory negligence – negligence on the part of the victim that contributes to his or her own injury or loss

3. In the area of intentional torts, defences include:
informed consent – an agreement that a patient gives for a medical procedure after all the risks are disclosed
self-defence - the protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another
legal authority – a form of leadership in which the authority of an organization or a ruling regime is largely tied to legal rationality, legal legitimacy and bureaucracy
discipline - the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience
necessity – a defence that indicates the accused had no other alternative to the action taken
recapture of goods - the act or an instance of retaking goods

4. Case Study Read Poirier v. Murphy.
Answer the following questions. We will discuss the answers after.

5. The Judge’s Decision
The judge held that Peter had given up his right to sue for negligence the first time the stunt was performed, because he willingly assumed the risk of harm. The second performance of the stunt was different because Peter was not ready to perform the stunt. Peter did not assume a risk until he nodded his approval, and he did not do so for the second run.
Both Peter and John were negligent. John was negligent because he owed a duty as the driver of the car to take care. He should have realized that Peter was not ready for the second stunt. John was at fault.
Peter was also partly responsible for his own injuries. He was negligent in agreeing to do the stunt and in not removing himself from the risk of harm before the second stunt. Peter was at fault.

6. Read Wilkins v. Allaby.
Answer the following questions. We will discuss the answers after.

7. The Judge’s Decision
The driver of the car, Hellen Allaby, was liable for damages caused by her negligent driving. She had seen the children on the sidewalk, but had not reduced her speed. There is a heavy responsibility on the driver of a car when she or he is aware that children are waiting to cross a busy street. Because the driver had not reduced her speed, she was at fault.
A young child should be judged by standards appropriate for a child of similar age, intelligence and experience. Donald was a child of average intelligence, and was experienced in crossing city streets. Children are not held to adult standards of care. But a child such as Donald might be expected to take care not to cross the street when cars are coming. A child who had no experience crossing city streets, or a younger child, would not be held to the same standard.

8. Issues in the Law
1. At what age should an individual be legally able to provide informed consent for medical procedures? Should it make any difference if the medical procedures involve a degree of moral choice on behalf of the minor patient?

9. Issues in the Law
2. What are/should be parental rights/responsibilities regarding informed consent for medical issues of their minor (under age eighteen) children?

10. Issues in the Law
3. How should the definition of reasonable force be determined in matters of parents disciplining children?