Which of the following is identified as an affirmative defense in the pleading rules?

• A. Assumption of risk
• B. The defendant's lack of standing
• C. The court's lack of jurisdiction
• D. The plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies

Answer: (B)

Affirmative defenses are those that the defendant must plead and prove to defeat the plaintiff’s claim, even if the plaintiff’s allegations are true. In North Carolina, the pleading rules identify certain defenses that must be raised as affirmative defenses in the answer because they require the defendant to add new facts or legal theories beyond a simple denial.

The defense that the plaintiff lacks standing fits that mold. Standing goes to the power to sue—the plaintiff must show a concrete stake in the outcome. If the plaintiff lacks standing, the court can’t decide the merits of the case, so relief cannot be granted regardless of what the facts show. That’s exactly the kind of extra factual/legal assertion an affirmative defense provides: it defeats the claim on grounds other than the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.

The other options involve issues that are typically treated differently under pleading rules. Assumption of risk, while a common defense in tort cases, is not the specific affirmative-defense category highlighted by the pleading rules. A court’s lack of jurisdiction is a fundamental, often jurisdictional, challenge that is usually raised by motion to dismiss rather than as an affirmative defense within the answer. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a procedural defense tied to regulatory requirements and is not the affirmative-defense category singled out in the pleading rules.