Home > Consent
 | | | |
Learn more about "Consent"
|
|
|
Consent
Consent as a term of jurisprudence is a possible defence (an excuse or justification) against civil or criminal liability. Defendants who use this defense (legal)|defense are arguing that they should not be held liability|liable for a tort or a crime, since the action (philosophy)|actions in question were taken with the plaintiff or "victim's" consent and permission.
Consent can be either express or implied. For example, participation in a contact sport usually implies consent to contact by other participants, at least as long as that contact is permitted by the rules of that sport.
For cases such as rape that involve the criminal law, see consent (criminal).
Tort
If a person signature|signs a document stating that he or she is aware of the hazards of an activity, and that individual is then injured during that activity, the express consent given in advance may excuse another person who caused an injury to that person.
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 Bondage (BDSM)|sexual bondage. ''Time Magazine|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.[''Chester v. Afshar'' 2005 1 AC 134 ] 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
- Assumption of risk
- ''Volenti non fit injuria''
- Implied consent
References
Category:Tort law
Category:Core issues in ethics
Related Images
Sources: StartLearningNow, Wikipedia | Usage license: GNU FDL
 |
Welcome to Start Learning Now.
Explore to your heart's content, and we hope you enjoy reading the material we
have assembled for you here! |
 |
| | | | |
Related News
|
|
Further Resources
|
|
Related Resources
search
|
|
