Rule of Law :
The essential requirements of intentional torts are the elements of intent, injury, damages and causation.
The concept of 'intention' does not require that Defendant (D) know that his/her act will cause harm to the Plaintiff (P), but must know with substantial certainty that their act will result in certain outcomes (landing of the plane on the P’s land).
To successfully make a claim against D, P must prove that D acted with purpose when he landed the plane on P’s property, that the act was intentional and it lead to the injury suffered by P (loss of land and crops) and the resulting damages to P’s land and crops.
It is clear from the facts that that Pilot had clear intent to land the plane on Farmer’s property, that there was injury, that were damages and that it was the act of the Pilot’s that caused the damages. Farmer (Plaintiff - P) may have three claims against the Pilot (Defendant – D) for damages based on intentional tort. The potential claims will be on the basis of :
a) Trespass to Land - Did Pilot trespass on Farmer’s land ?
b) Trespass to Chattel - Did Pilot trespass on Farmer’s chattel (property i.e. crops) ?
c) Trespass to Conversion - Did Pilot commit a conversion of Farmer’s property ?
From the Pilot’s perspective, the potential applicable defense privileges that the courts provide to the Defense such that they are not held responsible for their act, are in the form of i) consent, ii) self defense, iii) defense of others (good samaritan) or iv) necessity. Though there are additional defense privileges available under the rule of law, the facts of this case lean towards exploring the said defenses.
i. Consent : In the absence of consent from the property owner, consent can be implied by law (in the cases of emergency, when consent cannot be obtained in person) or consent can be implied in fact (when a consent cannot be