Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
47 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
How does trespass to the person differ from negligence? |
Negligence compensates the claimant in relation to indirect or unintentional (accidental) harm Trespass to the Person compensates the claimant in relation to direct and intentional harm |
|
|
Reynolds v Times Newspaper Facts: D published articles wrongly accusing C, former PM Ireland of duplicity. D appealed, saying it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the claimant’s status as a politician. Held: Nichols L dismissed the appeal saying that the English law of defamation should not allow the extension of the defence of qualified privilege to protect statements made about politicians/public figures. |
Injury which is not the direct and immediate result of the defendant's actions will be restricted to the tort of negligence |
|
|
How were the torts of Trespass to the person defined in Collins v Wilcock? (3 types) |
Goff LJ described the following: Assault - 'an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person' Battery - 'the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person' False imprisonment - 'unlawful imposition of constraint on another's freedom of movement from a particular place' |
|
|
What does an actionable assault require? (4 elements) |
1. Defendant must intend to be careless (subjective recklessness can satisfy) and acted voluntarily 2. Claimant must reasonably (objective) apprehend immediate and unlawful force 3. Application of immediate & direct force (means of carrying it out must be present) 4. No lawful justification or excuse |
|
|
What does an actionable battery claim require? (3 elements) |
1. Intentional (/subjective recklessness) application of unlawful (not necessarily hostile) force (unclear if outcome must be intended) 2. Which is direct and immediate (flexible) 3. Without lawful justification or excuse |
|
|
What does an actionable false imprisonment claim require? (3 elements) Not including actions brought on basis of section 5 HRA |
1. D must intend (careless recklessness sufficient) to restrict C's freedom of movement (cannot be from inaction) 2. Must be complete restriction (time imprisoned is irrelevant - probably wont win if emotionally pressured not to move) 3. Without lawful authorization (no need for knowledge of imprisonment) |
|
|
Stephens v Myers Facts: In Parish meeting, voted to have D ejected. Refused and advances toward P shaking his fist and threatening him. Held: Claim succeeded. |
Tinda CJ: 'It is not every threat, where there is no actual personal violence, that constitutes an assault, there must, in all cases, be the means of carrying the threat into effect'. Does not matter that battery never occurred Test of Reasonableness Apprehension is Objective - P's timidness did not matter |
|
|
R v Ireland Facts: D made series of private phone-calls to 3 women over 3 months. Convicted under Offenses Against the Person Act 1861. Appealed on basis that silence cannot amount to an assault and psychiatric harm is not bodily harm Held: Appeal dismissed |
Lord Steyn: 'A thing said is also a thing done' |
|
|
Thomas v National Union of Miners (S Wales) Facts: Threats were made by picketers who were on strike Held: Threats could not amount to assault because the picketers had no capacity to put into effect the threats of violence whilst they were held back from vehicles. Amounted to nuisance |
Confirmed 'Stephens' - must be way of putting the threat into effect Scott LJ: 'I do not understand how even the most violent of threats or gestures could be said to constitute an assault' |
|
|
Tuberville v Savage Facts: D struck P, who lost an eye. D put hand to sword and said 'if it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you'. Had been assize-time Held: Not an assault as words indicated no violence would ensue |
Test of reasonableness confirmed Had been no assault, words made it clear that D should not have reasonably believed threat would be carried out |
|
|
R v Meade and Belt Facts: D surrounded the victim's house singing threatening & menacing songs Held: No assault was committed. Mere words/singing not actionable assault |
Court's traditional view on non-violent assaults, overturned in R v Ireland Holroyd J: 'no words or singing are equivalent to assault' |
|
|
What is the view of Lunney & Oliphant on the test of reasonable apprehension? |
Unfair on claimant, as people are fearful and irrational in the face of a threat |
|
|
Read v Coker Facts: D demanded C leave premises. Threatened to break C's neck if he did not leave Held: Condition attached to threat is not enough to nullify it |
Attaching a condition to a threat of violence is not enough to nullify a claim of assault |
|
|
Why does the judiciary place such an emphasis on gestures in assault claims? |
To ‘distinguish a mere insult from aserious or immediate threat – to balance the conflicting interests of freedomof speech and public order |
|
|
What are the possible meanings of INTENTION in an actionable claim for battery? |
Ambiguous meaning, can be describing two different aspect's of conduct: 1. Intentional Conduct - voluntary action (clearly required for battery claims) 2. Intended Consequences - of willed action (less clear if this kind of intention is also needed) Recklessness may satisfy this requirement |
|
|
Fowler v Lanning Facts: C injured by bullet from D's gun. Claimed D was negligent Held: D would be liable if intended to wound/negligence could be shown. BOP on C |
Court's original stance on negligence in trespass, seemed to imply a trespass tort could be committed negligently Burden of proving negligence lies on claimant |
|
|
Letang v Cooper Facts: D negligently ran over P. Filed for trespass as she was at the time barred from suing in negligence Held: Denning MR said cause of action of trespass to person was limited to intended acts. |
Overruled Fowler, clear distinction between trespass and negligence by L Denning MR (confirmed in Iqbal) Action for trespass to person can now only be brought for intentional torts |
|
|
Williams v Humphrey Facts: D pushed C into pool. C broke ankle, despite D not having intended to hurt him Held: Extent of damage irrelevant, D had intended to touch C |
Damages in Battery are calculated as in Negligence A defendant will be liable for the full extent of the claimant's damages even if they had not intended to cause that extent of harm |
|
|
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner Facts: C directing D to park his car when D accidentally drove onto policeman's foot. Shouted at D to get off but he refused Held: At time of 'acteus reus' did not satisfy 'mens rea' of offence as purely accidental. When he formed 'mens rea', he lacked the 'acteus rea' as he did nothing |
Not acting after an incident may be tortious Even if the original act by D was involuntary, if D has opportunity to stop inflicting unlawful force and fails to do so battery can still be committed |
|
|
What was the court's initial stance on the the type of touching which could bring a claim in battery, and how did it change? |
Cole v Turner -
Lord Holt CJ: The lightest angry touch constitutes battery. Wilson - CA suggested there must be 'hostile intent' Collins (confirmed in Re F)- Lord Goff: force must accede acceptable conduct |
|
|
Wilson v Pringle Facts: D, schoolboy, playfully seized C's bag and caused him injury Held: C must establish hostile intent in touching, though not necessarily intent to injure |
'Hostile Intent' should be established People expected to take upon themselves some risk of injury in busy world Undermined in Re F |
|
|
Collins v Wilcock Facts: Police Officer grabbed woman's arm and was scratched. Held: Grab from P amounted to battery, scratch therefore self-defence |
Goff LJ: Implied consent is limited to normal justling in crowded places and does not extend to actions like grabbing, which exceeds 'physical contact...generally acceptable in... ordinary conduct of daily life' Broad prohibition of unwanted conduct qualified |
|
|
Re: F (Mental Patient) Facts: F was mentally disabled 36 YO. Inpatient since 14, with mental capacity of 4YO, she started having sexual relations and family sought declaration that sterilization would be lawful without consent Held: Declaration granted. |
Clarifies rule in Wilson re: hostility Goff LJ: 'recently been said that the touching must be 'hostile' to have that effect...I respectfully doubt whether that is correct... things may transcend the bounds of lawfulness without being characterized as hostile' |
|
|
Gibbon v Pepper Facts: D whipped horse, which trampled C Held: D was liable for C's damages |
Principle of Transferred Intent Can still have a claim in battery if direct and immediate force is applied to someone else but harm is suffered by C |
|
|
Scott v Shepherd Facts: D threw squib, which was thrown about by others and then exploded in P/s eye Held: injury still direct and immediate result of D's act. Mischief in some form was intended and all that was done afterwards was continuation of act |
Existence of 3rd party between act and trespass DeGrey CJ: 'Any innocent person removing danger from himself is justifiable' |
|
|
DPP v K Facts: 15 YO put acid in hot air hand drier in boys' toilets. Nozzle was turned upwards and blew acid into C's face Held: Application of force need not be directly |
Elaborated on test of Direct and Immediate force in battery Application of force in battery need not be directly applied if still direct consequence of D's actions |
|
|
What are the possible defences for Battery and Assault? (3) |
1. Consent - no battery where there is consent (or consent to risk, does not apply if touching is against public policy) 2. Necessity - partial defence 3. Self-defence - as is reasonable and proportionate (without requiring mathematically accurate calculation of threat) |
|
|
Under what conditions is consent valid? |
- C agreed D could touch her in way he did - At time of touching, C's level of maturity/intelligence/understanding was sufficient to enable C to decide to let D touch her - D did not agree to touching because she was forced by someone else |
|
|
R v William Facts: D was singing coach. raped D, saying he was performing an operation to open her air passages Held: Consent was invalid due to fraud as to nature and quality of act |
Consent must be informed Consent will only be actionable if at the time of the touching; C's level of maturity, intelligence and understanding was sufficient to enable C to decide to let D toucher her |
|
|
Chatterton v Gerson Facts: Doctor failed to explain possible consequences of a operation on a first operation and on subsequent corrective one Held: Failure to properly explain negated patient's consent. Doctor can be liable if patient demonstrates they would not have accepted the unexplained risk |
Clarified doctor liability re: consent Patient's consent to an operation was valid despite the fact that she had not been fully informed of the risks, because she broadly understood the nature of the operation |
|
|
Condon v Basi Facts: C suffered a broken leg during a tackle from D during a football match Held: Whilst a participant can be taken to accept the risks of injury inherent to such sporting activities they do not accept the risk of injury which occurs outside the rules of the game. |
Can be treated as having consented to battery/assault if voluntarily consented to risk of such |
|
|
R v Brown Facts: D were convicted of wounding C under Offences Against a Person Act 1861. Injuries inflicted during consensual sexual activites. Held: Consent of victim conferred no defence and appellants thus pleases guilty |
Defence of consent cannot be used against public policies Lord Templeman: "Societyis entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasurederived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised." |
|
|
MRRe T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) Facts: patient was pregnant. Got involved in a car accident and during hospital treatment required blood transfusion. Lord Donaldson MR: ‘Doctors faced with arefusal of consent have to give very careful & detailed consideration to thepatient’s capacity to decide...The more serious the decision, the greater thecapacity required. If the patient had the requisite capacity, they are bound byhis decision" |
Right of choice is not limited to decisions which other people might find reasonable |
|
|
ReF; F v West Berkshire Health Authority Facts: Theparties considered the propriety of a sterilisation of a woman who was, throughmental incapacity, unable to give her consent. Held: operation lawful if doctorconsidered it in the best interests of the patient. At common law adoctor cannot lawfully operate on adult patients of sound mind, or give themany other treatment involving the application of physical force however small, without their consent |
Where a patient is unconscious but otherwisecompetent and not known to object to the treatment, doctors may intervene inthe best interests of the patient. However they should do no more than is reasonably required inthe best interests of the patient |
|
|
What is the test laid down in the Mental Health Capacity Act 2005 for determining capacity? |
1.C must be unable to makea decision due to a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain(s2) 2. C is unable to do this if they are unable to: - Understand the information relevant to the decision - Retain that information - Use/weigh that information as part of the process of making thedecision - Communicate the decision by an means s3 |
|
|
B van NHS Hospital Trust Facts: C had come to suffer from disabling condition, requesting life support machine be turned off. Sought declaration of capacity Held: The right to determine whatshall be done with one’s own body is a fundamental right in our society. Thereis a presumption of capacity. It was dangerous to generalise about the effectof particular placements in this case her presence in an intensive care unit asreducing capacity |
Mental Health Capacity Act 2005 section 1(4): ‘a person is not to be treated as being unableto make a decision merely because he makes an unwise one’ |
|
|
Cockroft v Smith Facts: whether C running his fingers towards D's eyes justified him biting of part of C's finger Held: Self-defence must be proportionate to threat |
Unlike in criminal law, defendant's actions must not only be honest belief of danger but also reasonable Actions in self-defence must be proportionate to force exerted against them |
|
|
Lane v Holloway Facts: C injured by D in fight. C started abusing D's wife and C preemptively hit D, who struck C in the eye and hospitalized Held: D found liable. Reduced charges in light of provocation was reversed as action was improportional |
Established Provocation is not a defence |
|
|
Iqbal v Prisoner Officers Assistant Facts: Prison officers were on strike and P was not allowed to leave his cell for activities. Sued for false imprisonment Held: Failure of D to work involved no positive action on the part of D and was direct cause of C's confinement |
Inaction distinguished from Action Defendants would not be held liable in tort for results of their inactions, to ensure clarity and certainty in the law |
|
|
R vGoverner of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2) Facts: release date for a prisoner was calculatedcorrectly according to guidance issued by the Home Office, but case lawrequired the guidance to be altered, and the prisoner had been detained toolong.Held: tort of false imprisonment is one of strictliability, governor was liable even though he actedcorrectly according to then current standards
|
False Imprisonment need not be hostile to be unlawful |
|
|
Bird v Jones Facts: Section of road closed off. C complained he was not able to make use of public highway and was imprisoned Held: prison may have different forms and sizes, but must have a boundary completely preventing movement |
Movement must be completely restricted - Must not 'confound partial obstruction and disturbance with total obstruction and detention'. Prison has 'boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing' Similarly Robinson, not imprisoned if reasonable conditions on manner of leaving imposed |
|
|
What are the possible defences for False Imprisonment? (4) |
1. Consent 2. Voluntary Assumption of Risk 3. Necessity 4. Statutory Authority (burden of proof on part of claimant to show defendant acted unreasonably) |
|
|
Herd v Weardale Steel, Coke and Coal Co Ltd Facts: Coal company taken to court after employee, miner, had been refused transport to surface during the day Held: Had been contract of employment in which C agreed to be in shaft till end of shift |
Consent to False Imprisonment as full defence People may implicitly consent to being held inside an area for contracted amount of time Buckley, obiter - would be different if shift was finished and transport delayed |
|
|
Austin v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis Facts: C present at demonstration policed by the respondent. Had been prevented from leaving Oxford Cross for 7 hours Held: Where there is a deprivation of liberty, matter of degree and intensity. Crowd control measures were necessary in the situation and were done proportionality and in good faith, for no longer than necessary |
Necessity of False Imprisonment Court will look at number of factor to determine whether restriction (not deprivation) of liberty was necessary and proportionate |
|
|
R v Deputy Governer ex parte Hague Facts: The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Held: The House characterized the Prison Rules as regulatory in character, to the extent that they dealt with the management, treatment and control of prisoners. A prisoner ‘is lawfully committed to a prison and while there is subject to the Prison Act 1953 and the Prison Rules 1954. |
Cannot establish claim for false imprisonment when to do so would be to confuse the fact of confinement with conditions of confinement Upheld in Lumba |
|
|
Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Facts: C accused of stealing from D. Was taken to a guarded waiting room Held: Even though he did not contest his imprisonment it was because he did not try to leave the room so was unaware. Did not consent however so irrelevant |
Atkin LJ: 'It appears to me that a person could be imprisoned without him knowing it' Damages are however reduced |
|
|
Murray v Ministry of Defence Facts: P complained of false imprisonment/wrongful arrest by D - was not given reason for detention Held: HL accepted existence of implied power of statute ensuring safe and effective exercise of express power |
Reconfirming 'Meering' Ruling 'law attaches supreme importance to the liberty of the individual and if he suffers a wrongful interference with that liberty it should remain actionable without proof of special damage' Griffith LJ |
