Editing Tort (section)

===Remedies and defences in common law jurisdictions===
The remedies and defences available in common law jurisdictions are typically similar, deriving from judicial precedent with occasional legislative intervention. Compensation by way of damages is typically the default remedy available to plaintiffs, with injunctions and specific performance being relatively rare in tort law cases. Relatively uniquely for a common law jurisdiction, Singapore's Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 (CDRA) alters the common law by codifying a statutory tort of "interference with enjoyment or use of place of residence" and provides for a variety of remedies beyond damages, ranging from injunctions and specific performance to court-ordered apologies.<ref name=CDRA2015>{{Cite web|url=https://sso.agc.gov.sg:5443/Act/CDRA2015|title=Community Disputes Resolution Act 2015 - Singapore Statutes Online|website=sso.agc.gov.sg}}{{Dead link|date=October 2022 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Where a court order providing for a remedy other than damages is awarded under the CDRA is violated, sections 5-8 of the act require that the plaintiff apply for a 'special direction' to be issued in order to enforce the original remedy and section 9 provides that failure to comply with a special direction is grounds for the court to issue an order excluding the tortfeasor from their residence.<ref name=CDRA2015/> Aside from legislatively created remedies such as the CDRA, courts in common law jurisdictions will typically provide for [[damages]] (which, depending on jurisdiction, may include [[punitive damages]]), but judges will issue injunctions and specific performance where they deem damages not to be a sufficient remedy. Legislatures in various common law jurisdictions have curtailed the ability of judges to award punitive or other non-economic damages through the use of [[non-economic damages caps]] and other [[tort reform]] measures.

Apart from proof that there was no breach of duty (in other words, that a tortious act was not committed in the first place), there are three principal defences to tortious liability in common law jurisdictions:

*[[Consent]] and warning: Typically, a victim cannot hold another liable if the victim has implicitly or explicitly consented to engage in a risky activity. This is frequently summarised by the maxim "[[volenti non fit injuria]]" (Latin: "to a willing person, no injury is done" or "no injury is done to a person who consents"). In many cases, those engaging in risky activities will be asked to sign a [[waiver]] releasing another party from liability. For example, spectators to certain sports are assumed to accept a risk of injury, such as a hockey puck or baseball striking a member of the audience. Warnings by the defendant may also provide a defence depending upon the jurisdiction and circumstances. This issue arises, for example, in the [[duty of care]] that landowners have for guests or trespasses, known as occupiers' liability.
*[[Comparative negligence|Comparative]] or [[contributory negligence]]: If the victim has contributed to causing their own harm through negligent or irresponsible actions, the damages may be reduced or eliminated. 
**Contributory negligence: The English case [[Butterfield v. Forrester]] (1809) established this defence. In England, this "[[contributory negligence]]" became a partial defence, but in the United States, any fault by the victim eliminated any damages.<ref name=Little2007>Little WBL. (2007). [http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/30-1-81.pdf "It is Much Easier to Find Fault With Others, Than to be Faultless Ourselves": Contributory Negligence as a Bar to a Claim for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100610164112/http://law.campbell.edu/lawreview/articles/30-1-81.pdf |date=10 June 2010 }}. ''Campbell Law Review''.</ref> This meant that if the plaintiff was 1% at fault, the victim would lose the entire lawsuit.<ref name=Little2007/> This was viewed as unnecessarily harsh and therefore amended to a [[comparative negligence]] system in many states; as of 2007 contributory negligence exists in only a few states such as North Carolina and Maryland.<ref name=Little2007/> 
** Comparative negligence: In comparative negligence, the victim's damages are reduced according to the degree of fault. Comparative negligence has been criticised as allowing a plaintiff who is recklessly 95% negligent to recover 5% of the damages from the defendant. Economists have further criticised comparative negligence as not encouraging precaution under the [[calculus of negligence]]. In response, many states now have a 50% rule where the plaintiff recovers nothing if the plaintiff is more than 50% responsible.
*Illegality: If the claimant is involved in wrongdoing at the time the alleged negligence occurred, this may extinguish or reduce the defendant's liability. The legal maxim ''[[ex turpi causa non oritur actio]]'', Latin for "no right of action arises from a despicable cause". Thus, if a burglar is verbally challenged by the property owner and sustains injury when jumping from a second story window to escape apprehension, there is no cause of action against the property owner even though that injury would not have been sustained but for the property owner's intervention.
* Other defences and immunities:
**[[Sovereign immunity]]
**[[Good Samaritan law]]s, especially in jurisdictions with a statutory or common law [[duty to rescue]]
**[[Charitable immunity]]