There are usually several defense tactics that can be applied in a court of law in the event of a criminal case. A defendant may use contributory negligence as his or her defense against a plaintiff in a lawsuit. This is where the plaintiff is fully responsible for the incident that may have brought about an injury or accident. It applies when the plaintiff fails to take appropriate measures to minimize the effects of the accident or deliberately exposes him or herself to the injury.
Voluntary assumption of risk is also a defense strategy that may be used by a defendant. Here, the plaintiff must have been fully aware of the risks involved in a cause of action but he or she went ahead and did it anyway. This may be termed as a complete defense as it gives the defendant an automatic exoneration whereas the plaintiff is left with no choice but to withdraw his or her lawsuit. Illegal act, on the other hand, is a defense strategy that may be used by a defendant if a plaintiff is harmed while involved in an illegal action.
This too is a complete defense. This is because the plaintiff stands no chance of winning the case in which he or she gets physically harmed while engaging in unlawful activity. In such incidences, the injured persons are merely compensated for their injuries without making any profits from the lawsuit. Finally, there is the consent defense which involves intentional torts. Here, the plaintiff agrees to the tort committed and is never in a position to claim any form of compensation for the injury attained from the act. However, the consent provided by the plaintiff must be genuine and fully informed to meet the requirements of a consent defense.
In the case study of Christopher K. Jameson, who allegedly caused a four-car accident while attempting to make a phone call, we can note that nearly all the four types of defense strategies mentioned above may not be applied successfully in a court of law if all the four defendants initiate a lawsuit against Jameson. For instance, Jameson may not use contributory negligence as a defense tactic against David, Justin, or Haddad.
This is because the three-car owners had absolutely nothing to do with the accident. They did not expose themselves or their cars to any risk since they all parked at their rightful places. Additionally, neither of the car owners was in a position to take any measure that would have minimized the effects of the accident. Illegal acts may also not be successful when applied by Jameson as a defense tactic. This is brought about by the fact that all three car owners hit by Jameson’s car were not engaged in any illegal activity. Their cars were all parked at their rightful parking places. Subsequently, consent may not succeed as a defense either.
This is because David, Justin or Haddad would not have consented to any intentional act that might have caused the accident. Voluntary assumption of risk would, however, favor Jameson in his case. This is driven by the fact that David, Justin, and Haddad, whose cars were directly or indirectly hit by Jameson’s car, must have been aware of the risks associated with parking on the roadside but they went ahead and parked their cars there anyway.