tort law

In tort law, a defense that can be used against charges of trespass where a defendant interferes with a plaintiff's property in an emergency to protect an interest of his own. Private necessity does not serve as an absolute defense to liability for trespass. A defendant who commits trespass and invokes the defense of private necessity must still pay for any harm done to the property caused by his trespass, however, the defendant is not liable for nominal or punitive damages.

An exception to a rule in place in some jurisdictions that requires a defendant to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. The castle exception states that if a defendant is in his home, he is not required to retreat prior to using deadly force in self defense.

A tort claim where the claimant is an organization or an individual and the claim comes in the course of the business or profession of the claimant and does not include damages arising out of personal injury to or the death of an individual.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 9, such claims are not accounts.

An action for the wrongful detention of goods.

One of several torts under the category of invasion_of_privacy where a defendant is accused of spreading falsehoods about a plaintiff that would be considered objectionable by the average person. This tort overlaps with defamation, where the lies spread can also be defamatory; however, the key difference of the tort of false light from defamation is that under the tort of false light, a plaintiff can receive damages for the emotional harm that he or she suffered by the spread of the falsehood.

One of several torts falling under the category of invasion_of_privacy. Appropriation occurs when a defendant uses a plaintiff's name, likeness, or image without his or her permission for commercial purposes. When a defendant uses a plaintiff's name or likeness for a newsworthy purpose, however, this does not fall under the tort of appropriation and can be used as a defense by defendants.

In this situation, multiple defendants are simultaneously negligent, but only one injury results, leaving a state of uncertainty over which defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injury and which defendant should be held liable. In this case, the court deals with this situation by shifting the burden of proof on each of the defendants to provide evidence to prove that their breach of duty did not cause the plaintiff's injury. If neither defendant can satisfy this burden of proof, then both defendants can be held joint and severally liable.

A case where two defendants separately breach duties owned to a plaintiff, but there is an issue proving but-for causation in that each defendant can use the defense that neither of their breaches were there but-for causation of the plaintiff's harm, since the plaintiff would have been harmed even if one defendant did not breach his or her duty to the plaintiff.

A duty imposed on a doctor to explain the risks of recommended procedures to a patient before a patient determines whether or not he or she should go forward with the procedure.