PIERRE V SEAN
OPINION
INTRODUCTION
1. I am asked to advise Sean as to his potential liability relating to a potential claim brought by Pierre in the tort of a civil battery
FACTS
2. Sean throws an empty can of lager over an adjacent wall, and unknown to him, Pierre who is on the other side of the wall is struck on the head by the can and suffers a small cut.
ISSUES
3. What is the likely success of Pierre claiming against Sean for the tort of a battery (When the can struck his head)?
LAW AND APPLICATION
CLAIM 1 - PIERRE V SEAN
BATTERY
4. Civil battery in tort law is defined as "Direct, intentional, unlawful touching of claimant by defendant without consent or other lawful justification" Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172 at 1177. In F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 A.C. 73 Lord Goff says "... any touching of anther's body is, in the absence of lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery and a trespass."
5. Firstly, for there to be liability in battery there must be a form of touching. No force is required, and any slight touching can amount to battery as per Nash v Sheen [1953]. The touching must come from a positive, voluntary act only as omissions cannot raise liability in the tort of battery. Here, the throwing of the can was voluntary as Sean was aware of what …show more content…
secondly, direct must be satisfied as per Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439 whereby driving over the officer's foot was ruled as a direct and positive act. Regarding the "direct" element of civil battery, it can be indirect. This means that there need not be straight physical contact between the claimant and the defendant, yet the defendant can still be liable for battery. Here, in my opinion, the act causing the battery was a form of indirect contact when the empty can struck the claimant on the head since Sean did not physically touch him. The throwing of the can over the wall, which led to Pierre's head being struck and receiving a small cut, is enough to be classed as indirect
OPINION
INTRODUCTION
1. I am asked to advise Sean as to his potential liability relating to a potential claim brought by Pierre in the tort of a civil battery
FACTS
2. Sean throws an empty can of lager over an adjacent wall, and unknown to him, Pierre who is on the other side of the wall is struck on the head by the can and suffers a small cut.
ISSUES
3. What is the likely success of Pierre claiming against Sean for the tort of a battery (When the can struck his head)?
LAW AND APPLICATION
CLAIM 1 - PIERRE V SEAN
BATTERY
4. Civil battery in tort law is defined as "Direct, intentional, unlawful touching of claimant by defendant without consent or other lawful justification" Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172 at 1177. In F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 A.C. 73 Lord Goff says "... any touching of anther's body is, in the absence of lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery and a trespass."
5. Firstly, for there to be liability in battery there must be a form of touching. No force is required, and any slight touching can amount to battery as per Nash v Sheen [1953]. The touching must come from a positive, voluntary act only as omissions cannot raise liability in the tort of battery. Here, the throwing of the can was voluntary as Sean was aware of what …show more content…
secondly, direct must be satisfied as per Fagan v MPC [1969] 1 QB 439 whereby driving over the officer's foot was ruled as a direct and positive act. Regarding the "direct" element of civil battery, it can be indirect. This means that there need not be straight physical contact between the claimant and the defendant, yet the defendant can still be liable for battery. Here, in my opinion, the act causing the battery was a form of indirect contact when the empty can struck the claimant on the head since Sean did not physically touch him. The throwing of the can over the wall, which led to Pierre's head being struck and receiving a small cut, is enough to be classed as indirect