Which of the following is NOT a primary defense to intentional torts?

The correct answer is C, as insanity is generally not recognized as a primary defense to intentional torts. In tort law, particularly with regard to intentional torts, the focus is on the defendant's intent and whether they acted with the requisite mental state, such as purpose or knowledge. The idea of insanity, while relevant in criminal law contexts, does not typically serve to absolve a defendant of civil liability for tortious conduct.

In contrast, necessity, self-defense, and consent are established defenses that can negate liability for intentional torts.

• Necessity allows a person to engage in conduct that would otherwise be tortious if it is required to avert a greater harm. This defense justifies the action taken under the circumstances.

• Self-defense permits individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm, balancing the right to defend with the need to avoid unnecessary force.

• Consent involves the plaintiff agreeing to the act that would otherwise constitute a tort, which can preempt liability.

Each of these defenses directly relates to the actions taken by a defendant in a context where they would otherwise face liability for an intentional tort, making them valid defenses in tort actions. Insanity, however, does not provide that same foundation in tort law, thus categor