Consent defense in torts: which is accurate about scope?

• A. Consent has scope; adjacent parts covered, remote parts require separate consent
• B. Consent is always unlimited
• C. Consent requires notarization
• D. Consent is invalid if fraud

Answer: (A)

In torts, the consent defense turns on the scope of the permission given. When someone consents to a particular act, the conduct that is reasonably necessary to accomplish that act or that is ordinarily part of carrying it out is allowed within the scope of that consent. Adjacent parts or aspects that are reasonably incidental to the intended act are typically covered, but touching or acting on remote or non-consented parts falls outside the scope and would require separate consent or could be treated as a battery.

For example, a procedure on a specific area may include incidental touches to nearby tissue if necessary to complete the procedure; going to a distant area or performing a different procedure would exceed the consent unless there’s additional consent or an emergency.

Notarization is not required for consent, and while fraud can affect whether consent was valid, the question here is about the extent (scope) of what consent covers. Unlimited consent is not accurate.