Which of the following is generally NOT considered a defense against a tort?

Lack of intent is generally not considered a defense against a tort because tort law primarily focuses on the actions and consequences of those actions, rather than the mental state of the defendant at the time of the act. While certain torts may require intent for liability, many can be committed through negligent or reckless behavior, where intent is not a necessary element. This means that even in the absence of intent, a party can still be held liable for damages resulting from their actions if those actions meet the criteria for negligence or strict liability.

In contrast, defenses like consent, self-defense, and insanity can effectively absolve a defendant from liability under certain circumstances. Consent can bar recovery if a plaintiff voluntarily agreed to the act that led to their injury. Self-defense is a forceful justification for actions taken in response to an immediate threat, while insanity can sometimes protect a defendant who was not in a state of mind to understand their actions or differentiate right from wrong at the time of the tortious act. These defenses directly address the circumstances around the incident and can negate liability in ways that a lack of intent cannot.