Trespass To The Person

Front 1

What are the five torts to the person

Back 1

- battery
- assault
- false imprisonment
- the rule in Wilkinson v Downton
- (statutory) harrassment

Front 2

Definition of battery

Back 2

Any act of the defendant that directly and intentionally (or perhaps negligently) causees some physical contact with the person of the claiman without the claimant's consent.

Front 3

What are the key elements of battery

Back 3

- directness in the application of force (this is at the centre of tort did not matter whether intention or negligent)

- state of mind (both intention and negligent accts could result in liability in trespass so long as there was a direct violation c's bodily integrity

Battery is actionable per se

Front 4

Letang v Cooper [1965]

Back 4

Rule: Negligently caused personal injury cannot be recovered under the trespass to the person, but the tort of negligence must be tried instead.

Held: held unanimously that since Mr Cooper's actions were negligent rather than intentional, the statute of limitations barring claims actions for damage caused by negligence applied. Mrs Letang could not recover her damages because her claim was late.

Effect: An action for trespass to the person can now only be brought for intentional torts. A claimant wishing to recover damages to his person or property that were caused by the defendant's negligent action must prove all the elements of the tort of negligence

Front 5

Scott v Shepherd (1773)

Back 5

Suggests that it is possible to transfer intention. All you need is to intend act and not the outcome.

Front 6

Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [2000]*

Back 6

D punched a woman she consequently dropped her baby. D charged with criminal assault to baby. Court said intention exists in respect to baby. No idfference in facts of this case and on whern D used weapon weapon to fell the child floor, save only that this is a case of reckless and not intentional battery”

“intentional battery” language of tort. Suggests rules of tort and criminal law converge in that parallel rules are made to reflect each other. So a rule cannot be “borrowed” or transferred but a similar

Front 7

Bici v MOD [2004]

Back 7

Soldiers taking part in United Nations peacekeeping operations in Kosovo owed a duty to prevent personal injury to the public and had breached that duty by deliberately firing on a vehicle full of people when they had no justification in law for doing so.

The claimants, (M) and (S) respectively, sought damages from the respondent (MOD) in negligence and trespass to the person for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the actions of British soldiers involved in the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Kosovo.
Held: The soldiers were liable in negligence to two of the claimants. They owed a duty to prevent personal injury to the public and had breached that duty by firing without justification. There was no objective evidence that they were about to be fired on by the claimants. They were in breach of duty, not due to the manner in which they fired their weapons, but in firing at all. Furthermore, the claimants were not contributorily negligent

Self-defence is available in negligence if it is rea

Front 8

Forde v Skinner

Back 8

Orthodox view is that there need not to be tangeable harm in order to sue for battery. C was given an unwanted haircut and it amounted to battery. No harm was committed but action in battery was allowed.

Front 9

F vv West Berkshire Health Authority 1989

Back 9

Anger/ hostility is a crucial element to a pure battery. Hostile touching in context means the delibarate touching of another person beyond the bounds of everyday conduct without an excuse or consent

- this interpretation stops the mere brushing of shoulders being a battery.

- BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE CLAIMANT.

Front 10

Freeman v Home Office (No 2) 1983

Back 10

The act of displaying arm for injection conveys consent. However volenti non fit injuria (to a willing person, injury is not done) applies if he doesnt consent but leads the D to believe that he does.

Front 11

What is the definition of assault?

Back 11

An assault is any act of the defendatnt hat directly and intentionally or negligently causes the claimant reasonably to apprehend the imminent infliction of a battery.

In other words it occurs in the mind and requires directly and intentionality.

Front 12

What is the rule in Stephens v Myers 1830

Back 12

The claimant must have reasonably expected an immediate battery.
Claimants asked D to leave parish. D said would thow C out of chair D approaches C with fist clenched Church wardened intervened. It was held that there was an assault because close proximity etc made it reasonable to believe that D wouldve hit C if the warden had not of intervened.

Front 13

Reasonable apprehension of imminent battery is necessary according to which three cases?

Back 13

- Stephen v Myers 1830
- Thomas v NUM 1985
- Tuberville v Savage 1669

Front 14

What is the rule in THomas v NUM 1985

Back 14

C miners going into work on bus. Bus crossed picket line where striking miners waved fist. Working miners claimed they were assaulted. Court held they were not assaulted because in a bus, police were present and a reasonable person would not have believed the striking miners were going to commit battery.

Front 15

What is the rule in Tuberville v Savage 1669

Back 15

If gestures are accompanied by words that negative the apparent threat in the guestures, there will be no assault.
A put hand on handle of sword and said if it was not at a time where courts were in town I would not take such language from you and do something. Because it is a time where courts are in town I will no do anything thus wanst reasonable for victim to assume a battery was imminent.

Front 16

What is the rule in Wilkinson v Downton 1897 *

Back 16

D told C that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident as a joke. C suffered nervous shock which resulted in serious injury. When not in same room it assault cannot be directly inflicted because it is through a medium. So even though D caused illness , C couldnt sue for battery/assault because of lack of directness.

PROBLEMS: Difference between battery/assualt is the idea of directness. This case deals witht he absence of directness.
- Questionable foundation because usually one expts outce of jokes to be hilarity not shock. The C miscaculated the outcome of thet joke the act was not done to wilfully cause harm therefore it is difficult to see how this rule has derived from this case.
-Why cant it be neglence?

D liable because he had wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff. . . which in fact caused harm to her --> the idea The rule in Wilkinson v Downton relates to the intentional infliction of harm. This is not actually a trespass to the person but a sep

Front 17

Wainwright v Home Office 2004

Back 17

Mother and son w/ learning difficulties visiting son in prison. Both had strip search. Woman wasnt touched but bulied her into undergoing search and thus caused mental upset because breached right to privacy.

Held: W v D is not a remedy for disress that doesnt amount to recognised psyciatric injury. Damages might be recovered in a different rea in tort but the necessary intention for assault waas not established.

Lord Hoffman believed that we should rein in the use of W v D

Front 18

Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust 2001

Back 18

Where D has been proscuted and convicted this precludes not only a civil action for assault but an action using assault as basis for some other cause of action. --> This case more or less killed of the expansion of the tort in rekation to distress.

Front 19

Protection from Harrassment Act 1997

Back 19

If A pursues a course of conduct towards B that he knows (or ought to know) amounts to harrassment, he will be liable

Sec 7(3)Under this act for one to claim that they are distressed the conduct must have occured onn atleast two occasions.
PROBLEM: Does this make sense? For this reason some suggest the Wilkinson rule is better becuse includes situations that were just a one off.

Front 20

False Imprisonment

Back 20

Definitition: An act of D which directly and intentionally (or perhaps negligently) causes the confine of C within an area determined by the D.

Usually associated with battery/assault because in theory approaching someone for arrest= assault. Physically holding them = battery and imprisonment = breah of HR because restricting someones freedom

Actionable per se

This tort is about the recognition of the itnerest of freedom from confinement and against the loss of liberty to which they're entitled as it coincides with rights found in ECHR

Front 21

Requrements of false imprisonment

Back 21

D's STATE OF MIND: D must intend act certain to effect confinement. Negligence is enough to engage liability. Follows the thinking in Letang v Cooper. This intentional tort should be confined to pure intention

TOTAL RESTRAINT: Bird v Jones 1845 --> C climbed over barrier to see boating event but couldn't go any further. Claimed was falsely imprisoned.
Held: Could have gone back the way came thus was onlly partially imprisoned because could go one way and not the other thus reasonable means of exiting.
PROBLEM:What if unreasonable means of exit? Can you be falsely imprisoned?

LENGTH OF RESTRAINT: The length of unlawful restraint is immaterial. Bird v Jones 1845 --> "Imprisonment is as I apprehend a total restraint of the liberty of the person for however short a time"

KNOWLEDGE OF RESTRAINT: Murray v Ministry of Defence 1988-> "The law attaches surpreme importance to the liberty of the individual and if he suffers a wrongful interference with that liberty it should remain actionable"- Lord Griffit

Front 22

Imprisonment by Omission

Back 22

If fail to help someone exxit a place they can't exit alone.

Herd v Weardale Steel Coal and Coke Co 1913 -> C miner working in D mnes. C wanted to come up from mine and D said shift want over and contractually bound therefore refused to bring C up.
Held: D not liable because only duty was to pay C, provide safe environment and equipment. Duty wasnt to confer liberty therefore aw will not impose such duties.

R v Govenor of Brockhill Prison ex p Evans (No 2) 2001 -> Prisoner completed sentence. Duty of officer to release prisoner therefore he had the duty to conger liberty on C.

Front 23

Battery/Assault/False Imprisonment Damages

Back 23

These torts are actionable per se and not concerned with the harm done thus the compensatory damages are small. However one can obtin aggravated and exemplary damage. Also compensation can be achieved under the HRA 1998 if authorative figure but if tort completed with clear malevolence punative damages allow more money.

Front 24

What are the possible defences?

Back 24

-Self defence
-prevention of crime
-lawful arrest
-consent

Front 25

Self defence

Back 25

One is at liberty to defend when under attack. But requirements to do so lawfully are :
PROPORTIONALITY: D's response must be reasonable and propotionate.
Cockroft v Smith 1705 -> " A man may not in case of a small assault, give a violent or an unreasonable return"

MISTAKES AS TO A THREAT AND SELF DEFENCE: In the cases of mistake the law needs to be flexible enough to allow one to strike first if they suspect ehy are about to be hit. But either way must act in proportion to the threat.
Ashely v CC Sussex 2008-> Armed rad when A asleep naked. Room dark P believe A armed and shot him but police couldnt rely on self defence despite honest mistake because it was not reasonable to believe man was armed if he was naked and just woke up.

Front 26

Prevention of Crime

Back 26

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 confers a general right to use "such force is reasonble in the prevention of crime." Therefore if A attacked by B C can help prevent attack as long as he uses reasonable force.
- A crime has to be committed
PROBLEM: Use this at your own risk because if B is an undercover police officer then it is not unlawful and C's act= battery.

Front 27

Lawful Arrest

Back 27

The Police and Criminal Evidence ACT 1984 confers various powers of arrest.
Section 24(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 governs police officers' power of arrest. A police officer can arrest anyone without warrant if they reasonably believe that they are about to commit an offence. If already began committing offence and if the officer SUSPECTS is committing or about to commit an offence.

sec 24(2) If crime not yet committed but reasonable grounds for suspecting offence has been comitted he may arrest anyone has reasonable grounds to suspect is guilty.

CITIZENS
24A(1) Citizens can arrest anyone comitting serious offence or anyone have reasonable grounds to believe comitting serious offence.
24a(2) Can arrest anyone who is guilty or (b) hve reasonably grounds to believe is guilty

24a(3)(a)person making arrest must have reasonable grounds for beieving necessary to arrest person (b) it must appear not practical for constable to do it instead.
How judge if necessary?:
- arresting because per

Front 28

Consent

Back 28

At commonlaw if A cosnents to B's touch there is no right to sue B.
If A consents to risk of touch there can be no battery (volenti non fit injuria - no wrong is done to one who consents)

Knowledge of potential risk does not amount to consent. Consent is only valid if it is full appreciation of circumstances. If been deceived consent invalid because fraudelently obtained.

Front 29

Consent to Medical Treatment

Back 29

RULES ARE ENTIRELY COMMON LAW RULES.
Medical treatment decided to benefit person thus consent is more lenient than consent to other acts.
(i) Adults.
F v West Berkshire Health Authority-> Every human being of adult years ad sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done to own body." But patients can't be expected to know intricacies of every medical procedure
Chatterton v Gerson 1981-> informed consent is the notion that consent is not valid unlless all the risks of a surgical procedure have been explained. A person may not bring an action in trespass or negligence on the ground that had not been informed of the potential consequences.
PROBLEM: The main problems in this area centre on mental capacity and unconsciousness. FvWest Berkshire Heallth Authority A declaration was sought from the High Court by the mother of an adult woman whose mental age was assessed to be that of a small child. While in voluntary hospital confinement, she had formed a relationsip with a male patient in the same insti