DEFENSES TO BATTERY AND ASSAULT

Question 1

MCQUIGGAN V. BOYS SCOUTS OF AMERICA (RUBBER BAND CASE)

Answer 1

Boys engaged in playing rubber band game and one boy was injured – plaintiff had consented to playing the game (and did not make it clear when he ended his consent), so he consented to possibly getting injured, so no battery

Question 2

HOGAN V. TAVZEL (STD CASE)

Answer 2

Plaintiff and defendant had sex, but defendant did not disclose he had an STD – while plaintiff consented to sex, she did not consent to sex with someone who had an STD, so that is equivalent to no consent

Question 3

RICHARD V. MANGION (SCHOOL FIGHT CASE)

Answer 3

Plaintiff and defendant both showed up for a scheduled fight knowing what was going to happen, and both engaged – both parties voluntarily fought each other, so they both consented, and no excessive force was used so not liable for battery

Question 4

SLAYTON V. MCDONALD (SLAYTON CASE)

Answer 4

Plaintiff entered defendant’s house and continued approaching him threateningly – looking at all the circumstances, defendant was frightened for his life, and was justified in using force to stop plaintiff from harming him, and it was no excessive

Question 5

YOUNG V. WARREN (PROTECTIVE DAD CASE)

Answer 5

Plaintiff was threatening defendant’s daughter, defendant ended up accidentally killing plaintiff while he was leaving property – defendant used excessive force compared to danger defendant’s daughter was in, so not defense of others defense

Question 6

WOODARD V. TURNIPSEED (DAIRY FARM CASE)

Answer 6

Defendant hit minor plaintiff with broom after he refused to leave his property – Court held no defense of property because proportionality was not fair, defendant was fully grown man and plaintiff was minor child who could not leave property without a ride