Tort Law Lecture 6

Trespass to the person violation of ones liberty violation of ones

freedom violation of ones health

Rattlesteve vs. Grunestone 1317 One guy drilled a hole in a barrel

and put salt water in the barrel. The wrong that the plaintiff had
suffered was the force that came upon the individuals property.
Trespass would occur either by accident or intentionally.

3 main forms of trespass to the person

1) Assault
2) Battery
3) False Imprisonment

Directness When you throw a rock outside a window and you hit
someone on the head is a direct act. If someone trips over a rock that
has been placed on the ground is indirect.

Remoteness if your intention was a detrimental effect on another,

the plaintiff must prove that the act had a cause and effect to the
injury/tort

Weaver Vs. Ward (1616) The defendant had to prove that he/she
was not at fault. In this case 2 soldiers were training, one soldier
accidentally fired his weapon and hit the other soldier. The person who
was injured felt wronged and filed a claim for assault and battery. The
defendant was found liable because he could not prove that he/she
was not at fault.

There are strategic reasons for bringing a case forward from trespass
to the person cases.

Stanley vs Powel 1891 Hunting, guy missed his prey, hit a tree,
pellets bounced off and hit the plaintiff. There wasnt any intention,
there was just negligence in this case. The defendant failed to prove
that it wasnt his fault so he was held liable.

Direct intentional acts tort of trespass

Indirect unintentional acts tort of negligence

Letang vs Cooper 1965 woman sunbathing, got her leg ran over by a
car, waited 6 years to file a claim. The court said that you cannot
expect an action in trespass to the person to succeed when there is no
intention element involved.
Assault reasonable apprehension of harm
Elements of assault:
1) the intention of the individual to inflict harm
2) the effect on the plaintiffs mind (feeling fear)
3) capability of the defendant to carry out the threat
4) the bodily movement of the defendant

Stephens vs. Myers 1830 church parish convention, trying to expel

the defendant, the defendant got agitated and said that he would
throw another person off the chair. He got up and made a move
towards the president. The person was stopped before he could do it,
a claim was made against that individual.

Squib case intention to throw the squib

Tubenville vs. Savage 1669 Roaming courts someone said that it

if it wasnt for the criminal courts, the individual would have cut the
other persons throat.

R vs George (1840) considered to be an assault when someone

aimed his unloaded gun at someone. A reasonable apprehension of
fear was created.

Reed vs Coher 1853 individual did not pay his rent, landlord sent
over some goons to ensure that he did pay his rent. Goons said that if
you dont leave the premises they would break the guys neck. The
intention was clearly established, he succeeded in his claim for assault.

Scott vs Shepherdd famous squib case guys throwing around

some strange sparkler explosive thing, the item was passed around
several times and eventually it exploded and took out one guys eye.
Found liable for an assault

1998 creepy guy heavily breathing into a phone

Battery Any unwanted touching intentional touching of another

person without their consent. There must be force the word force
has lost a lot of its seriousness overtime. a total absence of
consent

Components of battery:
1) intention
2) under the defendants control (it cannot be an involuntary act)
3) it has to happen without the plaintiffs consent
Collins vs Willcock 1984 prostitution battery case prostitute
scratched a police officer after he grabbed her arm. The scratching in
the face was self defense, no claim

Wilson vs Pringle (1987) horseplay among kids, etc you must have
intent to cause harm. The court failed to give a definition of what
hostile means. With kids horse playing there is usually no hostile
intention.

Turner case you have to have the intention to cause harm

Battery intention to produce the battery

Nash vs Sheehan 1953 hairdresser case hairdresser gave the
woman something she did not ask for, ended up burning her head.

Livingston vs Ministry of Defense 1984 protest case, the gun shot

pellets that had the capability of injuring but not death. Shot a pellet
and hit the wrong person. The intention to hit someone was
transferred to the person he actually shot, so he was liable for battery.

Colye vs. the state of new south wales (2006) The defendant was
unfairly detained and in the process of his detention, he was forced to
provide a finger print set. It was considered to be humiliating for the
defendant. He had a successful claim against the state.

Wilkinson vs Dowton 1897 as part of a bad practical joke, the D told

the P that there was a serious injury to someone close to her. Told the
woman that they needed to get pillows to carry the injured person.
The person was not really injured, but the woman felt that she had
suffered damages as a result of the practical joke. The court devised
that there need not be physical harm as long as the distress suffered is
serious enough.

Wong vs Parkside NHS Trust (2001) orchestrated unkindness towards

a co-worker. She brought a claim for trespass. The court said that this
does not amount to battery. There was no intention on behalf of the
defendants to bring about the event that created the actual harm. The
claim failed. This has now been changed by the harassment act of
2007.

Wainright v home office 2003 emotional damage from a strict body

search.

Lack of consent
Mallette vs Shulnan 1990 Ms Mallette was a jahovas witness, they
are against blood transfusions. Mr Shulman ignored the Johovas
witness card and conducted a blood transfusion. She succeeded.

Defective Consent
Chatterton vs Gerson 1980 She had an operation, she lost sense of
movement on her leg that was operated on. That was one of the
speculated risks that the doctor should have informed the woman
about. The doctor gave a brief description of the risks, but said it in a
very general way. The court held that this brief description of the
possible risks had actually put him in a position to defend himself
against a claim of trespass. But that was back in 1980.

RE JT 1998 mentally challenged individual, renal failure, she refused

treatment. It was established by the doctors that she was able to
understand the consequences of her actions. The court will not always
feel that mentally challenged people are not in a position to provide
consent.

R vs Brown consent is not a defense in causing grievous bodily

harm. This does not apply in tort (boxing example).

Consent obtained through fraud

R vs. Williams 1923 defendant was a singing coach of a young

woman, he told her that he needed to open her windpipe. She had
consented to sex, but she didnt know that through sex no air passage
would open which would benefit her singing. She was having oral sex
under the impression that it would benefit her singing, it turned out it
wouldnt.

R vs Linekar 1995 Guy has sex with a prostitute. He says he wont

pay her, she brings a claim for battery against him. She only
consented to sex under the provision that she would be getting paid.
It was held not to be battery. It wasnt battery because she had
consented to the nature of the act.

R vs Tabassum 2000 lecturer in the intensive care unit At one point

he convinced 3 women he was a doctor and needed to examine their
breasts. He showed them how to make a self assessment for finding
breast cancer. He was involved for 3 hours in this process, the women
consented to be touched by someone who was medically qualified. In
this case it wasnt.

Provocation may be a factor in diminishing damages

Lane vs Holloway 1967 neighbors, 23 year old and a 64 year. 23
year old was a roudy character, the 64 year old was not a fan of the 23
year old. There was a fight one night, the 63 year old first punched the
23 year old in the shoulder. The 23 year old destroyed the 63 year old
causing him to need stitches. It was over the top violence and he was
convicted of battery.

Mattis vs Pollock vicarious liability in a battery case owner of a

nightclub encouraged his bouncers to behave in such a way as to
encourage the bouncers to use excessive force. There was a
scrimmage at the entrance of the club, the bouncer got hit, he
returned to the scene (outside of work hours) and used a knife on the
guy under normal circumstances, the employer would not be held
liable, but in this case because it was so violent, the acceptance of the
violence of the employer played a part.