TYPES OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
•
Self-defense
•
Arrest and detention
•
Defense of property
•
Privilege to discipline
•
Arrest and searches
•
Privileges to enter land/premises pursuant in connection w/ public rights
•
Necessity

Must show:
(1)Reasonable person would have perceived an imminent threat, and
(2)Response was reasonable and not excessive

Barbie, Ken and the Clerk
Barbie and Ken, two famous celebrities, are getting married.
When they go to the county office for their marriage license,
Clerk recognizes the couple. She gushes to Ken, “I’m your biggest fan! Can I kiss you?” Without waiting for an answer
Clerk runs toward Ken to kiss him. Barbie grabs Clerk’s wrist, yelling “Don’t you dare touch my man!” Unable to escape
Barbie’s grasp, Clerk punches Barbie in the face. Clerk then sits back down at her desk. An enraged Barbie then jumps on top of Clerk, punching her several times.
(1) Clerk sues Barbie. What intentional tort claims can she bring? Will she succeed?
(2) Barbie counter-sues Clerk for battery. Will she succeed?

Permissible if:
(1) Reasonable person would have perceived an imminent threat to property,
(2) Action reasonably necessary to defend property, and
(3) Force used commensurate to threat
*Deadly force not reasonable if no threat to life or limb

(1)Reasonable cause : Reasonably believe chattel tortiously taken/stolen
(2)Reasonableness of Detention : Detained on premises
– in reasonable manner
– for reasonable amount of time
(3)Purpose of Detention : Detained for purpose of questioning (i.e., investigation)/summoning law enforcement)

(1) P committed felony,
[(2) Reasonably believe P committed a felony],
(3) P committed a misdemeanor that is breach of peace
+ D witnessed this, or
(4) Reasonably necessary to prevent P committing felony
*Purpose is to detain for investigation/summoning police + manner of detention is reasonable

Hypo
Susie, a frequent customer at Macies, is admiring one of the store’s red scarves. She takes off her blue scarf, previously purchased from the store, and tries on the red scarf. She decides not to purchase the red scarf and places her blue scarf back around her neck. The security guard standing nearby mistakenly believes that Susie is stealing the blue scarf. “Hey you!” he yells at her, “ I saw you stole that scarf.
Stop right there!” Dismayed that she would be accused of stealing, an angry Susie begins walking out of the store. The security guard draws his gun and again yells at her to stop.
Fearing for her life, Susie dashes out the door. The security guard pursues Susie for several blocks, finally tackling her to the ground. The police are then summoned. Susie sues
Macies. What claims can she bring and will she prevail?

Consent
•
Consent can be non-verbal/inferred from circumstances
•
Effective consent if D reasonably believed P consented
•
Effective consent if P consents to the act, even if did not consent to its consequences
•
No consent if not voluntarily given and D knows this
–
Coercion/duress
–
Power imbalance
•
Consent ineffective if not meaningful consent and D knows this
–
P incapable of understanding nature of act/ consequences/ moral significance
–
P misled/mistaken as to true nature of act

•
Non-consent: Battery if patient refused to consent to specific procedure ( Ashcraft, Duncan )
•
Scope of consent: No informed consent if patient not informed of
–
Specific procedures will/may perform ( Kaplan )
–
Reasonably foreseeable risks
•
Incapacitated/incompetent patient: No battery if
(1) Emergency;
(2) Medically appropriate treatment; and
(3) No patient surrogate available in timely manner

Elements:
(1) Action intended to benefit public
(2) Reasonable belief action necessary to avoid imminent public threat
(3) Reasonable response to public threat
Consequences:
–
No liability for damages
–
Owner loses privilege to defend property/expel trespasser

Police are chasing two suspected gang members, both of whom are believed to be armed and dangerous. The suspects break into Plaintiff’s home in an attempt to hide from the police. The
SWAT team soon arrives and surrounds the house.
The SWAT team fires 25 rounds of tear gas and throws several grenades into the house. The suspects are eventually apprehended. Plaintiff’s house suffers extensive damage. Plaintiff sues the police.
Plaintiff sues for trespass to land. Can the police successfully assert a defense of public necessity?

(1) Action intended to benefit private individuals
(2) Reasonable belief action necessary to avoid imminent threat/address immediate need
(3) Benefit to private individuals outweighs property owner’s interests