Which of the following is NOT a defense to negligence?

The correct answer is that intentional infliction is not a defense to negligence. Negligence requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant breached a duty of care, leading to harm. Defenses to negligence typically focus on mitigating the plaintiff's responsibility or liability in some way.

Contributory negligence bars or reduces recovery if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm. Comparative negligence allows for a proportionate reduction of the damages based on the plaintiff's share of fault. Assumption of risk involves a plaintiff becoming aware of a risk and voluntarily accepting it, which can limit or eliminate their ability to recover for injuries.

In contrast, intentional infliction pertains to a different tort entirely. It involves causing emotional distress through intentional or reckless conduct. Since it does not relate to the principles governing negligence claims, it does not serve as a defense in a negligence case. Understanding the distinctions between different torts and their associated defenses is crucial for navigating concepts in tort law effectively.