Necessity refers to a situation in which an individual is compelled, in order to prevent a serious harm to oneself or another person, to commit an act that is considered a crime or causes damage to other individuals. The consequences arising from such conduct may be examined under two categories: the civil liability and the criminal liability of the person acting under necessity. There is near consensus regarding the absence of criminal liability for the actor under necessity, provided that the conditions of necessity are fulfilled and that the interest protected is more valuable than the interest sacrificed. However, there is no consensus as to whether the person acting under necessity bears civil liability. Some scholars, emphasizing the role of fault, deny any form of civil liability for the necessitous actor. Another group, relying on the theory of strict liability, argues that proof of fault is not required in all cases of civil liability and that necessity constitutes one of the situations in which an individual may be held civilly liable even in the absence of fault. A third group, while accepting the necessity of fault as a basis for civil liability, justifies recourse against the necessitous actor on the basis of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The present study, conducted through a library-based research method, examines the aforementioned issues and ultimately concludes that a person acting under necessity should not be deemed criminally liable. With respect to civil liability, the third theory appears to be more persuasive, as it is more effective in preserving the rights of a greater number of individuals in practice.