Trespass to the person cases
0.0 / 5
- Created by: Amy
- Created on: 05-04-17 01:05
Collins v Wilcock – battery - battery definition
‘the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person.’
1 of 45
Wilson v Pringle – battery - object of the intention
Act of horseplay - ‘It is the act and not the injury which must be intentional. An intention to injure is not essential to an action for trespass to the person. It is the mere trespass.
2 of 45
Williams v Humphrey – battery - object of the intention
D pushed C into the shallow end of a swimming pool, intending only to cause a big splash. Liable for injuries to C’s foot and ankle.
3 of 45
Bici v Ministry of Defence – battery - subjective recklessness and transferred malice
Subjective recklessness can suffice and the doctrine of transferred malice applies in tort.
4 of 45
Fagan v Commissioner of the police of the metropolis – battery - intent by omission
D’s act in mounting the policeman's foot with his car was unintentional. But didn’t move it - intention to inflict unlawful force.
5 of 45
Fowler v Lanning – battery - negligent trespass
C’s statement of claim said that D had shot the claimant. If the action was unintentional then C would have to show that D acted negligently.
6 of 45
Letang v Cooper – battery - negligent trespass
C was sunbathing in a car park when D drove his car over her legs. ‘[W]hen injury is not inflicted intentionally, but negligently, I would say the only cause of action is negligence and not trespass.’
7 of 45
Dodwell v Burford – battery - direct
If D strikes a horse on which C is sitting and the horse throws C off, there is a sufficiently ‘direct’ act to constitute a battery.
8 of 45
Scott v Shepherd – battery - direct act
D threw a firework onto the market stall of Y. Got thrown around, D was held liable in battery and C’s injury was held to be from a direct act by D.
9 of 45
Haystead v CC of Derbyshire – battery - direct act
D struck a woman in the face, with the result that the baby she was holding fell to the floor. D was convicted of assault on the baby.
10 of 45
Cole v Turner - battery - force
‘The least touching of another i n anger is a battery’ (emphasis added).
11 of 45
Force example cases - battery
Hitting C with a rifle or other instrument – Lavery v MOD. Throwing a bucket of water over C – Pursell v Horn. Bomb – Breslin v McKevitt. Shooting – Bici. Flashing a light in someone’s eye? – Kaye v Robertson.
12 of 45
Re F – battery - actionable per se – no need for hostility
Do not have to cause C any injury, indeed a battery could actually improve C’s health. A prank gone wrong, over friendly slap on the back – not hostile.
13 of 45
Collins v Wilcock – Assault – assault definition
‘an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person’.
14 of 45
Stephens v Myers – assault – without a battery
D advanced in a threatening manner towards C, to strike him but was stopped before he was near enough to strike. It was held that this amounted to an assault.
15 of 45
Bici – assault – recklessness and transferred malice
Recklessness not sufficient for the mental element of assault and the doctrine of transferred malice does not apply.
16 of 45
Mbasogo v Logo Ltd (No 1)
Planning a coup d’etat in Equatorial Guinea did not constitute an overt act causing apprehension of immediate violence.
17 of 45
Hepburn v CC of Thames Valley Police – some threat needed.
D does not assault C by merely passively standing in front of C, getting in their way and refusing to move. some threat of physical interference needed.
18 of 45
Meade v Belt --- then R v Ireland
Old case said no works or singing are equivalent to an assault then the new law is silent phone calls can be an assault.
19 of 45
Tuberville v Savage – words negating an assault
D grabbed his sword and said ‘were it not assize time, I would not take such language from you’. This is not a conditional threat (‘your money or your life’).
20 of 45
Collins v Wilcock – false imprisonment – false imprisonment definition
‘the unlawful imposition of constraint upon another’s freedom of movement from a particular place.’
21 of 45
R (on the application of Lumba) - false imprisonment – definition
C must prove he was directly and intentionally imprisoned by D, whereupon the burden shifts to the defendant to show that there was lawful justification for doing so.
22 of 45
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association - false imprisonment – definition
it must be an intentional or at least reckless positive act or, in limited circumstances, omission and it must be the direct and immediate cause of the loss of liberty.
23 of 45
Herd v Weardale Steal – false imprisonment – a positive act
C, a miner, had descended the mine working for D. D refused to permit him to use the lift until 1.30pm although available earlier. C’s claim failed: D had merely done nothing and C only had a right to leave at 4pm.
24 of 45
Governor of Brockhill Prison ex p Evans – false imprisonment -
D miscalculated C’s release date based upon a line of cases that was later overturned. False imprisonment: D had duty to release at that date and C had right to be released.
25 of 45
Davidson v CC for North Wales
D mistakenly suspected C of theft and so informed police who confined C. Mistake. Merely create opportunity for the imprisonment.
26 of 45
Alleyne v Commissioner of Police of the Metroplois – false imprisonment – physicality
The constraint need not be physical and it is not necessary for C to be physically touched.
27 of 45
Bird v Jones – false imprisonment – the restraint must be total
C attempted to cross a bridge, which had been closed off. D was able to go in another direction. Not a false imprisonment as the constraint was not total: C had a means of escape.
28 of 45
Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd – false imprisonment – D can place reasonable conditions on C’s exit
C entered D’s ferry terminal at the Sydney side after paying a penny. He decided not to take the ferry and tried to leave the way he had entered. D demanded a penny - not falsely imprisoned as the condition for his exit was reasonable.
29 of 45
Lumba – false imprisonment – actionable per se
actionable per se regardless of whether the victim suffers any harm. An action lies even if the victim does not know that he was imprisoned.
30 of 45
Meering v Grahame-White Aviation – false imprisonment – actionable per se
A person could be imprisoned without his knowing it. I think a person can be imprisoned while he is asleep, while he is in a state of drunkenness, while he is unconscious, and while he is a lunatic.
31 of 45
Wilkinson v Downton – the rule
C will have a good cause of action where D has ‘wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff—that is to say, to infringe her legal right to personal safety, and has in fact thereby caused physical harm to her.’
32 of 45
Janvier v Sweeney – Wilkinson rule – application of the rule
D pretending to be a police officer, he tricked C into cooperating by telling her she was accused of corresponding with a German spy. C suffered nervous shock and won in an action under the rule.
33 of 45
Cases applying the rule
Khorasandjian– prevent an ex partner from making threatening phone calls. Wong v Parkside health – D was rude and unfriendly – insufficient to impute intent. Wainwright – wrongfully subject to a ***** search – no intention to cause distress – failed.
34 of 45
O v Rhodes – false imprisonment – application of the rule
This is now the leading case on the rule – said there are three elements – conduct directed at C for which there is no justification or excuse, intention to cause at lease severe mental or emotional distress; and physical harm or recognised psych ill
35 of 45
Majorowski – harassment – the intention of the Harassment Act 1997
The Act seeks to provide protection against stalkers, racial abusers, disruptive neighbours, bullying at work and so forth.’
36 of 45
Daiichi UK Ltd v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty – harassment - corporations
The Act protects individuals not corporations.
37 of 45
Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd – harassment
Harassment is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable.
38 of 45
Hayes v Willoughby – harassment – defences – prevent crime
held that ‘purpose’ means ‘predominant purpose’. It does not need to be D’s sole purpose. However, to rely upon this defence D needs to demonstrate that his course of conduct was rational.
39 of 45
see Re F (mental patient: sterilisation) – trespass – defences - consent
A doctor cannot lawfully operate on an adult patient of sound mind, (physical force) however small, without their consent.
40 of 45
Gillick – trespass – defences – consent
Children under 16 may still be able to consent to treatment if they have sufficient intelligence and understanding of the proposed treatment.
41 of 45
Re W – trespass – defences – consent
Refusal of consent by either the parent or the child can be overruled by the courts if treatment is in the child’s best interests.
42 of 45
Consent cases - trespass
Must be voluntary consent – R v Williams, the treatment must be necessary – Appleton v garret. Not voluntary if under undue influence – Re T. must be sufficiently informed – Chatterton v Gerson and Sidaway. S&M – consent? R v Brown.
43 of 45
Re F – trespass – defences – necessity
If C cannot give a valid consent then treatment can be given in their best interest. Mental Capacity Act 2005.
44 of 45
Ashley v Sussex – trespass – defences – self defence
Police raid the man was unarmed – they were not acting in self defence. Need to reasonably belief force is necessary and the use of force must be proportionate and reasonable.
45 of 45
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Act of horseplay - ‘It is the act and not the injury which must be intentional. An intention to injure is not essential to an action for trespass to the person. It is the mere trespass.
Back
Wilson v Pringle – battery - object of the intention
Card 3
Front
D pushed C into the shallow end of a swimming pool, intending only to cause a big splash. Liable for injuries to C’s foot and ankle.
Back
Card 4
Front
Subjective recklessness can suffice and the doctrine of transferred malice applies in tort.
Back
Card 5
Front
D’s act in mounting the policeman's foot with his car was unintentional. But didn’t move it - intention to inflict unlawful force.
Back
Similar Law resources:
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
3.0 / 5 based on 1 rating
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
0.0 / 5
Comments
No comments have yet been made