The term crime comes from the Latin word “tortum” which means “to twist”. This is behavior that is not right or not legal but is crooked, illegal or crooked. This includes all unjust acts by which a wrongdoer infringes the legal right conferred on another person. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Tort justification primarily talks about common defenses. There are many situations that prevent an incorrect action, which in their existence would be illegal. When the accuser files a complaint against an individual and all prerequisites for crimes are met, that individual is supposed to be held accountable. However, in such circumstances, the defendant can also evade his obligation by using the pretext of some justification. Here are the general defenses in tort: ​​Volenti non fit injuria Plaintiff's default Unavoidable accident Act of God Private defense Mistake Necessity Statutory authority Volenti Non Fit Injuria This basically means "to a consenting individual, harm is not caused" in the literal sense . This implies that no harm is caused to the person who consented to such harm. Thus, if the accuser has given consent to suffer harm, he cannot complain about it later and his consent constitutes a good defense against him. This consent may be expressed or implied. The basic implication of this proverb was known even to the ancient Germans and Romans. They spoke of the saying as nue injuria est quae in volenti fiat, meaning that nothing is an injury that results from the will. For example, if an individual called “A” himself invites another individual “B” to his home, he cannot blame him. for trespassing. Another case could be that of an individual agreeing to a medical operation. The individual who himself agrees to be a spectator or player, for example in a match of cricket or football, etc., cannot complain if he is injured. This defense has a dual application: Application to intentional acts; it applies to those intentional acts which would have been or would be tortious, such as consent to bodily injury which would or would have been assault. Application to Accidental Acts It applies to consent to incur the danger of accidental harm, which might otherwise be actionable by reason of the negligence of the creature which caused it, such as a master, is not liable if the servant who was injured undertook the work knowing the risks. The idea of ​​this justification can be better seen with the help of the case. Case: Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing ClubFacts: The accuser, in this case, went to watch a motor race being held at Brooklands on a track which was in the possession of the other party. As the race was underway, an unfortunate collision occurred between the two cars and one of them was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring the accuser. This tragedy happened for the first time after almost 26 years. Inmate: 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 intrinsic to this type of sport and a sensible man can well foresee such a threat. The defendants were not insurers of such an accident. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion Overall, tort justifications can be..