Also known as: privileges of self-defense · self-defense privilege
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A privilege allowing an actor to use reasonable nondeadly force to protect against an imminent unprivileged harmful or offensive contact that the actor reasonably believes another is about to inflict intentionally. The privilege is unavailable against contacts within the scope of prior consent unless that consent was procured by fraud or has been withdrawn.
Jamal agreed to light padded contact during a basketball drill run by coach Rivera. Rivera delivered a much harder unexpected blow. Jamal immediately shoved Rivera to the floor. Because the harder blow fell outside the scope of Jamal's consent, Jamal retained the ordinary privilege of self-defense and is not liable for battery.
Hugh repeatedly jabbed Sadie in the chest on a crowded trading floor despite her warning. Sadie grabbed Hugh's shoulders and pushed him backward with moderate force to protect a nearby colleague who was also being threatened. Because the circumstances gave the colleague a privilege of self-defense, Sadie's intervention is privileged and she is not liable for battery.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. Consent eliminates the privilege only as to contacts within the scope of the assent. When the other party exceeds that scope, the actor retains the ordinary privilege of self-defense against the unconsented invasion.
Supporting sources
No. The privilege permits an actor to stand ground and repel an imminent offensive contact with reasonable nondeadly force even when safe retreat is possible.
Supporting sources
No. Prior hostility does not destroy the privilege when the force is used for the purpose of preventing an imminent offensive contact rather than for retaliation.
Supporting sources
Yes. An actor may defend a third person under the same conditions that would create a privilege of self-defense for that third person, provided the intervention is necessary for the third person's protection.
Supporting sources
…an inference that the second time Fountain used his knife he knew from prior experience that he was exceeding the bounds of his privilege of self-defense, or that, given this knowledge, it was more likely than not that Fountain never intended to defend himself at all. The majority also holds that the prior knifing was admissible to show a…