Consent is objectively based on the situation at the time (consent can come from a person’s words or actions). In emergency situations, what a reasonable person would have consented to at the time if conscious. Consent in sports context: rough play is expected but limited (diff than rules) Koffman v. Garnett (2003)-- coach slams 13 yr old student into the ground in football practice of sport relevant as well as who the rules were designed to protect. Self defense: force used to protect in the face of reasonable self or someone else harm. imminent Elements: (1) reasonable and actual fear of imminent injury; (2) response must be proportional (reasonable, do only what HAVE to do; usually NOT lethal harm). Why do we allow self-defense? The easiest way to prevent greater harm is to allow people to protect themselves. (Least cost avoider.) Defensive action does NOT need to be option, but a the most reasonable reasonable option. of threat matters in determining a reasonable defensive action. Nature If D reacts (disproportionate harm in return) to a threat, S is liable unreasonably for between a reasonable reaction and the actual unreasonable one; the difference BUT P is still liable to D for their threat against D. Haeussler v. De Loretto (1952): P threatened D and refused to leave D’s porch, NOT battery b/c self defense. D punched P and slammed door; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) Elements: 1) D’s conduct is extreme and outrageous (a reasonable person would perceive it as such, exceeds bounds of decent behavior”) “all 2) D intends to cause emotional distress or there is a high probability that D’s actions would cause IIED (reckless) 3) victim must experience severe emotional distress (physical manifestation of distress can be important) **ONLY intentional tort requires ACTUAL damages.** NO imminence required 4) Conduct must be cause of the severe emotional distress Roberts v. Saylor (1981): doctor former patient he does not like her right before she goes into surgery with a different doctor, no physical manifestation of emotional distress Reasonable person would NOT see doctor’s conduct as extreme or outrageous. Relationship between doctor and patient had ended.
Consent is objectively based on the situation at the time (consent can come from a person’s words or actions). In emergency situations, what a reasonable person would have consented to at the time if conscious. Consent in sports context: rough play is expected but limited (diff than rules) Koffman v. Garnett (2003)-- coach slams 13 yr old student into the ground in football practice of sport relevant as well as who the rules were designed to protect. Self defense: reasonable force used to protect self or someone else in the face of imminent harm. Elements: (1) reasonable and actual fear of imminent injury; (2) response must be proportional (reasonable, do only what HAVE to do; usually NOT lethal harm). Why do we allow self-defense? The easiest way to prevent greater harm is to allow people to protect themselves. (Least cost avoider.) Defensive action does NOT need to be the most reasonable option, but a reasonable option. Nature of threat matters in determining a reasonable defensive action. If D unreasonably reacts (disproportionate harm in return) to a threat, S is liable for the difference between a reasonable reaction and the actual unreasonable one; BUT P is still liable to D for their threat against D. Haeussler v. De Loretto (1952): P threatened D and refused to leave D’s porch, D punched P and slammed door; NOT battery b/c self defense. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) Elements: 1) D’s conduct is extreme and outrageous (a reasonable person would perceive it as such, exceeds “all bounds of decent behavior”) 2) D intends to cause emotional distress or there is a high probability that D’s actions would cause IIED (reckless) 3) victim must experience severe emotional distress (physical manifestation of distress can be important) **ONLY intentional tort requires ACTUAL damages.** NO imminence required 4) Conduct must be cause of the severe emotional distress Roberts v. Saylor (1981): doctor former patient he does not like her right before she goes into surgery with a different doctor, no physical manifestation of emotional distress Reasonable person would NOT see doctor’s conduct as extreme or outrageous. Relationship between doctor and patient had ended.