Consent

Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault  · Battery  · False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)
Consent  · Necessity  · Self defense
Property torts
Trespass  · Conversion
Detinue  · Replevin  · Trover
Dignitary torts
Defamation  · Invasion of privacy
Breach of confidence  · Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Economic torts
Fraud  · Tortious interference
Conspiracy  · Restraint of trade
Nuisance
Public nuisance  · Rylands v. Fletcher
Negligence
Duty of care  · Standard of care
Proximate cause  · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine  · Duty to rescue
Specific kinds of negligence
Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED)
In employment  · Entrustment
Malpractice
Duty to visitors
Trespassers  · Licensees  · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Strict liability torts
Product liability  · Ultrahazardous activity
Liability, defences, remedies
Comparative and contributory negligence
Last clear chance  · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability  · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Damages  · Injunction
Common law
Contract law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence

Consent as a term of jurisprudence is a possible excuse against civil or criminal liability. Defendants who use this defense are arguing that they should not be held liable for a tort or a crime, since the actions in question were taken with the plaintiff or "victim\'s" consent and permission.

For cases such as rape that involve the criminal law, see consent (criminal).

Tort

For example, if the plaintiff signs a document stating that he or she is aware of the hazards of paintball, and that individual is then injured playing the game, the express consent given in advance may excuse the person who shot the plaintiff. In English law, the principle of volenti non fit injuria applies not only to participants in sport, but also to spectators and to any others who willingly engage in activities where there is a risk of injury. Consent has also been used as a defense in cases involving accidental deaths, which occur during sexual bondage. Time (May 23, 1988) referred to this latter example, as the "rough-sex defense" but it is not effective in English law when serious injury or death results.

Medicine

The question of consent is important in medical law. For example, a surgeon may be liable in trespass (battery) if they do not obtain consent for a procedure. There are exemptions, such as when the patient is unable to give consent.

Also, a surgeon must explain the significant risks of a procedure (those that might change the patient\'s mind about whether or not to have it) before the patient can give binding consent. This was explored in Australia in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. If a surgeon does not explain a material risk that subsequently eventuates, then that is considered negligent. These material risks include the loss of chance of a better result if a more experienced surgeon had performed the procedure (Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232).

See also

• Consent of the governed
• Informed consent
• Popular sovereignty

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from Wikipedia