• Part A:The defense of consent protects a defendant from liability where a person voluntarily gives up the right to be free from harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension or fear of such contact. Justify whether or not the following situations gives rise to a valid defense of consent.
• Three friends were hanging out at the beach when one of the friends, Tom, said, "You couldn't throw me into the water if you tried." The other two friends jumped up, grabbed Tom, and threw him into the water, despite his protests and struggle. Upon hitting the water, Tom hit his head on a rock, leaving him partially paralyzed.
• Would Tom's words give rise to the defense of consent given the situation in which they were given?
• If you believe that Tom gave his consent by his words, do you believe that he withdrew his consent by his "protests and struggles?" If you do not believe Tom gave consent, then provide a rationale for your position.
• Part B:Courts have held that an actor with a legal interest in land has the right to use "reasonable" force to prevent intrusions onto the land. Review the case p. 67) of Woodard vs. Turnipseed.
• Here, Turnipseed had fired Woodward and escorted him to the time clock to punch out. During this time, Woodward threatened several times that he was "going to get" Turnipseed but did not carry out his threat. Woodward remained on the farm at least ten (10) minutes, presumably waiting for a ride home, during which time Turnipseed repeatedly asked him to leave. When he didn't leave, Turnipseed hit Woodward three (3) times with a broom, causing a hematoma of the right flank, a contusion of the left forearm and some contusion to the kidney.
• Discuss whether or not Turnipseed's use of this force could support a defense of self or property from imminent harm.
• Discuss whether or not Turnipseed's use of this force was justified by the right to use "reasonable force" to evict a trespasser, that is, one who has been asked to leave and refuses. Was the force used reasonable?