A pedestrian accuses a sports player of battery after being struck accidentally during a recreational game in a public park. The player argues the pedestrian had chosen to observe the game near the field. Which legal defense most accurately applies to the player's argument?
The correct answer is consent because the pedestrian's decision to observe the game near the field indicates agreement to the potential risks involved, which includes the possibility of being struck by a ball or by a player engaging in a lawful and reasonable sports activity. This implied consent is a recognized defense to battery.
The other options are not correct because:
Self-defense involves protection from an immediate threat of harm, which does not apply here.
Necessity applies when the action is taken to protect against a significant harm or emergency, which is not relevant to this factual scenario.
Parental discipline is a defense that applies to parents or guardians disciplining their children within the scope of reasonableness, unrelated to the context of this question.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does 'implied consent' mean in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does consent act as a defense in battery cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can the pedestrian still sue the player if there is implied consent?