Necessity Study Outline

The defense of necessity allows a person to take action that would otherwise be considered a tort or crime when under imminent threat of harm. The necessity can be divided into two categories: private necessity, where the action protects the individual from harm, and public necessity, where the action protects the public or a significant number of individuals from potential harm. The legal justification relies on the balancing of needs against harm caused by the actions taken. In both contexts, the actor must demonstrate that the harm prevented outweighed the harm caused by the action taken.

In private necessity, the individual may commit a tort if it is necessary to protect their own interests. An essential factor in private necessity cases is that the individual does not have the right to compensation for damage if their actions cause harm to another's property, but they are justified under the circumstances. In contrast, public necessity allows a person to act in a way that causes damage to personal property if it is necessary to protect a large number of people. Unlike private necessity, individuals are not liable for damages in public necessity cases if their actions are justified in preventing greater harm to the community or public health.

The application of necessity is not without limits. Courts have emphasized that the defense does not justify reckless or unreasonable conduct, and the necessity must be directly linked to unavoidable danger. For example, if an individual causes damage to someone else's lawn in order to escape a pursuing animal, the defense of necessity could potentially be invoked if the threat was immediate and real. However, if the action was reckless or not truly necessary, courts may reject the necessity defense. Furthermore, the individual claiming necessity must not have created the danger themselves; otherwise, the defense may be barred. As a result, a careful analysis of the circumstances surrounding each case is crucial.