The term tort originates from the Latin word "tortum" denoting "to twist." It consists of that behavior that is not right or not legalized but twisted, illegal or bent. It includes all those unjust acts in which a wrongdoer violates the legal right conferred on another individual. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayTort justification is primarily about common defenses. These are numerous circumstances that prevent wrong action which in their existence would be illegal. When the accuser files a lawsuit against an individual and all tort prerequisites are met, that individual is held liable. However, in such circumstances the defendant can also save himself from the obligation by citing any justification. The following are general defenses to torts: Ineligible Volenti Injuries Actor's Default Unavoidable Accident Act of GodPrivate DefenseErrorNecessityStatutory Authority Ineligible Volenti Injuries Basically it means "for a consenting individual, the harm is not done" in the literal sense. This implies that no harm is caused to the person who gave consent to such harm. Therefore, in case the accuser has given his consent to suffer harm, he will not be able to complain about it later and his consent serves as a good defense against him. This consent may be express or implied. The basic meaning of this proverb was known even to the ancient Germans and Romans. They spoke of the saying as nulle injuria est quae in volenti fiat, which means that nothing is a harm that comes from the will. For example, if an individual says that "A" invites another individual "B" to his house, he cannot blame him. for trespassing. Another might be that of an individual accepting a medical operation. The individual who agrees to be a spectator or player, for example, in a cricket or football match, etc., cannot complain if he gets injured. This defense has a double application: Application in intentional actsIt applies to those intentional acts that would have been or would have been wrongful, such as consent to physical harm that would have been or otherwise an assault. Application in accidental actsApplies to consent to run the risk of accidental harm, which would otherwise be actionable as due to the negligence of the creature who caused it, for example a master, is not liable if the injured servant undertook the work despite knowing the risks. The idea of ​​this justification can be better understood with the help of the case. Case: Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club Facts: The accuser, in this case, went to watch a motor race taking place at Brooklands on a track which was in the possession of the other party. During the race an unfortunate collision occurred between the two cars and one of the two was thrown into the spectators, thus injuring the accuser. This tragedy occurred for the first time in almost 26 years. Held: They were not held responsible. The court said the accuser gave indirect consent to the danger when he purchased the ticket. The threat of injury is inherent in these types of sports and a sensible man can very well foresee such a threat. The defendants were not insurers of such an accident. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion Overall, justifications in tort can be specific to a single tort or can even apply to all torts. For example, in defamation cases, the defendant can..