Torts Week 1 Intentional Torts Trespass, direct connection between wrongful act and person/property Action on case, indirect/consequential

ntial damages as a result of action. log on highway. Dominant tort is negligence: action on the case. Intentional torts (person, land, chattels/goods etc) Directness o Hutchins v Maughan, P brought dogs onto land filled with poisoned baits after informed by D. Consequential, no trespass. o Scott v Shepard, where injury is immediate (trespass), consequential, remedy is (in case). Firecracker eg middlemen involuntarily passed on danger D initiated. Trespass immediacy. o Letang v Cooper, distinguishes between trespass and negligence. Factor is intention, not directness. If intended = tort of assault. If negligent = tort of negligence. Shot bullet and ricochet example. This (English) view not asserted in Australia. Fault o Trespass, simply intending to interfere (not result or intent to cause harm). Must be voluntary; Epileptic fit on railway Public Transport Commission (NSW) v Perry. o Fault can be intentional or negligent (D reasonable care). Negligent trespass vs negligence -> Williams v Milotin Damage o Proof of damage not required in trespass touching as battery -, yes for action for case. o Plenty v Dillon, no proof of damage, however protection of P rights to land and liberty are honored to prevent anarchist trend. o Re. chattels, based on principle repeatedly touching art - any interference suffices as trespass. Onus Of Proof o In trespass, D must prove no fault/intent.

Intentional Interference With Person Battery o Intentional contact with another person w/o consent. o Trespass established by positive act, however can also be by omission of act (one continuous positive act), Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner o P must prove act was direct; D must prove act neither intentional nor negligent. o Battery need not be in hostility for eg, surgical treatment beyond consent o Brian Rixon v Star City, act was for engaging P attention and ordinary conduct in everyday life - not unlawful.

Torts Week 1 Assault o Determined by reasonable apprehension of imminent contact with regard to circumstances. o Without lawful excuse, a voluntary act, intentionally or carelessly, creates in the P the apprehension of imminent harmful direct contact. The assault must also be the immediate and direct result of Ds act. o D must have the means or actual ability to carry out the threat (Stephens v Myers), or the apparent present ability to carry out the threat (Brady v Schatzel). o P need not be in fear (Brady v Schatzel). o Sufficient if the threat would arouse an expectation of unlawful contact, or fear, in the mind of a reasonable person unless D knows of a plaintiffs particular sensitivity (Bunyan v Jordan). o P must be aware of the threat (R v Phillips) o In some cases, words may neutralise the physical threat (Tuberville v Savage) o In some cases, words alone can amount to assault (Barton v Armstrong). o Assault requires intent to use/apprehend force in the mind of P. Rixon v Star City, no force to cause injury, no intention of imminent harmful contact. False Imprisonment o Depriving liberty without lawful justification. o Actionable per se: no proof of damage o Total imprisonment - no room for free movement. Bird v Jones (obstruction) o No reasonable means of escape required (Burton v Davies) o Must be against Ps will (Myer Stores v Soo) o P need not be aware of the imprisonment (Myer Stores v Soo) o Terms imply liberty is held pending a condition, Balmain New Ferry o Restraint need not be physical, eg where P submits to Ds control in the belief that the D has lawful authority to detain and that any attempt to escape will be prevented (Symes v Mahon, and Myer Stores v Soo).

Action On The Case For Intentional Harm Workplace harassment, sexual harassment, mental distress etc Wilkinson v Downton, D willfully calculated act to cause physical harm to P. Indirect & intentional. Fault established as Ds act calculated to produce an effect (intention) anticipated.