2.3 Theoretical Justifications for Tort Liability and Defenses

The justifications' theories (why liability at all): 1. Corrective justice — the wrong's balancing (Aristotle's frame: the loss shifted to the wrongdoer). 2. Distributive justice — the loss's fair spread (the deep-pocket-and-insurance realities). 3. Utilitarianism — the welfare's maximisation (the deterrence's calculus). 4. Rights-based theories — the rights' vindication (the wrong's answer as the right's proof). 5. Economic analysis — the efficiency's frame (the cheapest cost avoider; the activity's internalisation — the law-and-economics contribution). The defences' catalogue (the exam's list): 6. Volenti non fit injuria — the consent's defence: no injury to the willing (the risks' free assumption; the rescue's limits — the volenti's strict conditions). 7. Contributory negligence — the victim's share: the claim's reduction (the comparative negligence's modern form — the damages' apportionment). 8. Necessity — the harm's justification (the emergency's lesser-harm logic — the public necessity's privilege). 9. Self-defence — the protection's privilege (the force's proportionality). 10. Statutory authority — the Act's permission (the authorised harm's bar — the statutory-power faces). 11. Inevitable accident — the unforeseeable despite care (the no-liability proof's face). 12. Mistake — the general irrelevance (the mistakes' exceptions — the malicious prosecution's faces). 13. Limitation — the time's defence (U2.2's face).