Informed Consent In Sports

If the plaintiff gives consent to the action, that may be a defence for the appellant. However, the consent must be real. That is, it must be an informed consent, it must be given voluntarily,it must be genuine and the defendant must have acted in a way which remained within the scope of the consent which the plaintiff actually gave.

However, the person does not need to explicitly state the consent in order for the consent to be useful. It may be possible to imply that consent from the circumstances in which the persons are involved. E.g., Athlete, the kinds of behaviour which a athlete consents to will differ depending on the nature of the sport. By participating in karate, judo, kick boxing and boxing, people by implication consent to contact

Usually such authority is granted for the purposes of mainting public peace and order. Police officers, and citizens under certain circumstances, have authority to exercise force against anyone. Hotel owners are entitled to remove people from their premises under certain conditions. If owners or proper occupiers of land are faced with a trespasser, they can use reasonable force to eject the trespasser from the land under certain conditions. The law has also often held that parents have legitimate authority to apply force against their children to teach them discipline. It also extended such authority to persons in loco parentis (i.e. who stand "in the place of parents") such as guardians and school teachers. But in many jurisdictions today it is quiet rare.

Self-Defence

If a person uses legitimate force to repel an attack either against himself or others or against his property, that is a defence to assault and battery. The action of self-defence must only be such as is appropriate to repel the attack; it must not be excessive. If an attacker is unarmed, it would be excessive action to repel the attack by shooting him or her. It would also be unreasonable and excessive to kick an attacker after you have knocked him or her unconscious.

For example, a lifeguard might have to hit or knock out a swimmer who is in danger, in order to bring the swimmer back to shore. Necessity would be a defence in such cases. Of course, in many cases there is a fine line between necessary action and assault or battery. For example, in emergency surgical procedures the answer might depend on whether the emergency was real. In a case where the patient 's life would be immediately threatened if the surgeon did not carry out the procedure, then the necessity for action overrides any other requirement of consent. But suppose that the patient 's life is not in immediate danger, and the surgeon could have finished the current procedure and then sought the consent of the patient, thereby postponing the operation until shortly afterwards. In those circumstances, if the surgeon still performs the additional procedure without consent, perhaps because it is convenient to herself or to her employers, then those actions are not a matter of necessity and so necessity cannot be a defence.

Necessity might apply in cases where it relates to a need to defend your own interests or your own health, just as it might apply with respect to the need to protect the interests of others. In such cases, there is clearly an overlap with the defence of