Which of the following is NOT a recognized defense to negligence?

The concept of negligence revolves around the failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances. Recognized defenses to negligence serve to mitigate or eliminate liability by demonstrating that the injured party contributed to their own harm or was aware of the risks involved.

Assumption of risk refers to a situation where an individual voluntarily engages in an activity knowing the inherent risks, thus potentially barring them from recovering damages if an injury occurs. Contributory negligence suggests that if the injured party's own negligence contributed to their injury, they may be partially or fully responsible, impacting their ability to claim damages. Immunity is a legal doctrine that can protect certain individuals or entities from liability under specific circumstances, such as sovereign immunity for government entities.

In contrast, coercive consent is not recognized as a valid defense within negligence claims. It implies that an individual consented to a situation due to coercion or duress, which undermines the validity of that consent. Thus, it does not provide a legitimate defense against negligence claims because true consent to participate in an activity cannot be given under coercive circumstances. This fundamental principle highlights the necessity for genuine consent, which stands apart from recognized defenses like those that allow for mitigating or apportioning fault.