Under the emergency doctrine, when can a defendant avoid liability for tortious conduct?

The emergency doctrine allows a defendant to avoid liability for tortious conduct if their actions were taken in response to an emergency situation that required immediate action to prevent greater harm. In this context, the correct choice highlights that if the defendant reasonably believes that the risk to the plaintiff's life or well-being outweighs the possibility of obtaining consent, they may act without liability for negligence.

This principle acknowledges that in emergency situations, decision-makers may have to act quickly, sometimes without the time to secure express consent from the individual at risk. If a defendant genuinely believed that their actions were necessary to avert serious harm to the plaintiff, they can invoke the emergency doctrine as a defense.

In contrast, the other choices do not align with the principles of the emergency doctrine. If the conduct is intended to harm the plaintiff, it undermines the justification of acting in an emergency, as intent to harm negates a defense. A plaintiff's previous medical condition may be relevant in other contexts but does not automatically absolve a defendant from liability under the emergency doctrine. Similarly, consent obtained after the fact does not address the immediacy of the situation faced by the defendant during an emergency, where they had to make a split-second decision.