Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

**A-Tort Law > assault battery and false imprisonemtn > Flashcards

assault battery and false imprisonemtn Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MPRE flashcards MBE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

What is an assault

A

an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is battery

A

the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is false imprisonment?

A

the unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what are the 3 core characteristics for the trespass torts?

A

1) type of culpability: they are to be committed intentionally or recklessly
2) Type of harm- can recover for some types of har that can’t be recovered in negligence
3) proof of harm- they are actionable per se, that is, without proof of personal or financial loss

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What case under
‘type of culpability’
notes that
‘when the injury is not inflicted intentionally but negligently, I would say that the only cause of action is in negligence and not trespass’.

A

Letang v Cooper

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Under type of culpability

Iqbal v Prison Offciers Association considers the intentional committal

A

a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.

A

Under type of culpability

Iqbal v Prison Offciers Association considers the intentional committal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the 3 elements of battery?

A

1) intentional application of unlawful force
2) which is direct and immediate
3) For which there is no lawful excuse of justification

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what case is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1) ?

A

Williams v Humphries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Williams v Humphries is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1)
discuss case

A

The defendant pushed the claimant into the swimming pool as a practical joke, unfortunately this caused the claimant to break his ankle.
Held: The defendant was liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

The defendant pushed the claimant into the swimming pool as a practical joke, unfortunately this caused the claimant to break his ankle.
Held: The defendant was liable.

A

Williams v Humphries is an example of intentional application of unlawful force (battery step 1)
discuss case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

which case demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)

A

fagan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

fagan demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
discuss case

A

D accidentally drove over officers foot but then failed to move it after being made aware
Criminal battery can also show tort of battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

D accidentally drove over officers foot but then failed to move it after being made aware
Criminal battery can also show tort of battery

A

fagan demonstrates an intentional application of unlawful force
(intention application of unlawful force battery)
discuss case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

(intention application of unlawful force battery)

Which case demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery

A

Wiliiams v Pringle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

D pulled a bag off C’s shoulder and injured C

NO battery because action was horseplay

A

(intention application of unlawful force battery)

Wiliiams v Pringle demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Which 2 cases concern

-which is direct and immediate?

A
  • Scott v Sheppard

- DPP v K

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q 
Scott v Sheppard 
DPP v K 
both consider what is meant by direct and immediate 
under battery 
discuss the first
A

Defendant throw a small firework into a market place was to be liable aftr it was thrown onwards by two stall holders before exploding and injuring a third

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Defendant throw a small firework into a market place was to be liable aftr it was thrown onwards by two stall holders before exploding and injuring a third

A 
Scott v Sheppard 
DPP v K 
both consider what is meant by direct and immediate 
under battery 
discuss the first
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q 
Scott v Sheppard 
DPP v K 
both consider what is meant by direct and immediate 
under battery 
discuss the second
A

A school child created a bobbly trap by filling a hand dryer with sulfuric acid, which burnt the next child to use it.
Held: The defendant was liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

A school child created a bobbly trap by filling a hand dryer with sulfuric acid, which burnt the next child to use it.
Held: The defendant was liable.

A 
Scott v Sheppard 
DPP v K 
both consider what is meant by direct and immediate 
under battery 
discuss the second
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Which standard defences apply to the 3rd battery step

‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’

A
  • voluntary assumption of risk and

- illegality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

-voluntary assumption of risk and
-illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
this is most relevant in medical context. Which case demonstrates this and explain

A

Chatterson

the patient must be“informed in broad terms what the procedure involves”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Chatterson

the patient must be“informed in broad terms what the procedure involves”.

A

-voluntary assumption of risk and
-illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
this is most relevant in medical context. Which case demonstrates this and explain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

voluntary assumption of risk and
-illegality are standard defences which apply to the 3rd battery step
‘for which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
this is most revelenat in a medical context. Which case established that an adult patient with no mental incapacity has an absolute right to choose whether to consent to medical treatment

A

Re T

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
Which case demonstrates the 2 part test for self defence. and what is the 2 part test?

A

Ashley v CC of Sussex Police

1) the claimant must have a reasonable belief that they are about to be attacked and
2) the force they use must be proportionate to the circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Ashley v CC of Sussex Police

1) the claimant must have a reasonable belief that they are about to be attacked and
2) the force they use must be proportionate to the circumstances

A

Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
Which case demonstrates the 2 part test for self defence. and what is the 2 part test?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
What are the 3 cases under self defence?

A

Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Cross v Kirkby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
the three cases under this are

Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Cross v Kirkby

discuss the second

A

Claimant had run towards the defendant with his finger pointsd towards D’s eye. the defendant bit the claimants finger off

held:
disproportionate force so not valid self defence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Claimant had run towards the defendant with his finger pointsd towards D’s eye. the defendant bit the claimants finger off

held:
disproportionate force so not valid self defence

A

Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
the three cases under this are

Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Lane

discuss the second

31
Q

Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
the three cases under this are

Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Lane

discuss the third

A

claimant believing the defendant was going to hit him threw a punch at the defendants shoulder. The defendant then punched the claimant causing severe injury

HELD
punch was disproportionate and provocation not a defence
The man who strikes a blow of such severity is liable in damages unless he can prove accident or self-defence’.

32
Q

claimant believing the defendant was going to hit him threw a punch at the defendants shoulder. The defendant then punched the claimant causing severe injury

HELD
punch was disproportionate and provocation not a defence
The man who strikes a blow of such severity is liable in damages unless he can prove accident or self-defence’.

A

Under self defence under the last step of battery
‘For which there was no lawful excuse or justification’
the three cases under this are

Ashely v CC of Sussex Police
Cockcroft v Smith
Lane

discuss the third

33
Q

which case established that assault is “an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person”.

A

Collins v Wilcock

34
Q

what are the 4 elements of assault?

A

1) the defendant must intend or be reckless as to the claimants apprehending of the application of unlawful force
2) it must be reasonable for the claimant to apprehend immediate unlawful force being applied to them and
3) the threat must be of the apprehension of immediate and direct force
4) no lawful justification or excuse

35
Q

under the 2nd element of establishing an assault, what is the case which considers whether C has a reasonable fear ?

A

Stephens v myers

36
Q

Stephens v myers considerswhether C has a reasonable fear under the 2nd element of establishing an assault,

discuss case

A

Defendant asked to leave parish council meeting. The defendant threatened the chair with violence and advanced toward the chair with a clenched fist before being intercepted.
Held: Liable in assault.

37
Q

Defendant asked to leave parish council meeting. The defendant threatened the chair with violence and advanced toward the chair with a clenched fist before being intercepted.
Held: Liable in assault.

A

Stephens v myers considerswhether C has a reasonable fear under the 2nd element of establishing an assault,

discuss case

38
Q

Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, which cases considered this?

A
  • Thomas v National Union of Miners
  • R v Ireland
  • Tuberville v Savage
39
Q 
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, 
the following cases considered this
-Thomas v National Union of Miners 
-R v Ireland 
-Tuberville v Savage

discuss the first

A

During the miners’ strike a group of striking miners outside a mine shouted abuse and threats at miners being bussed in to work in the pit. One of the miners on the bus sought to sue the organising union in battery.
Held: No assault.

40
Q

During the miners’ strike a group of striking miners outside a mine shouted abuse and threats at miners being bussed in to work in the pit. One of the miners on the bus sought to sue the organising union in battery.
Held: No assault.

A

Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force,
the following cases considered this
-Thomas v National Union of Miners

41
Q 
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, 
the following cases considered this
-Thomas v National Union of Miners 
-R v Ireland 
-Tuberville v Savage

discuss the second

A

Facts: the defendant had been harassing women for some time, including by making silent phone calls to them.
Held: The court held ‘a thing said is also a thing done’ and the defendant liable.

42
Q

Facts: the defendant had been harassing women for some time, including by making silent phone calls to them.
Held: The court held ‘a thing said is also a thing done’ and the defendant liable.

A 
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, 
the following cases considered this
-Thomas v National Union of Miners 
-R v Ireland 
-Tuberville v Savage

discuss the second

43
Q 
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, 
the following cases considered this
-Thomas v National Union of Miners 
-R v Ireland 
-Tuberville v Savage

discuss the third

A

The defendant placed his hand on his sword and stated ‘if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you.’
Held: No assault

44
Q

The defendant placed his hand on his sword and stated ‘if it were not assize time I would not take such language from you.’
Held: No assault

A 
Under the third element of establishing an assault, whether the threat was of the application of immediate and direct force, 
the following cases considered this
-Thomas v National Union of Miners 
-R v Ireland 
-Tuberville v Savage

discuss the third

45
Q

How has Collins v Willcock described false imprionsment

A

unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place’

46
Q

What are the 3 elements of establishing false imprisonemtn?

A

1) The defendant must intend the restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement,
2) There must be a complete restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement, and
3) It must be done without lawful authorisation.

47
Q

under false imprisonment which case demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessly?

A

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association

48
Q

under false imprisonment Iqbal v Prison Officers Association demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessl
discuss case

A

a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.

49
Q

a prisoner, alleged false imprisonment. The prison officers had taken unlawful strike action leaving him to be confined within his cell and unable to be involved in his normal activities.
HELD:
The mere failure of the prison officers to work at the Prison, while it may have been a breach of their employment contracts, involved no positive action on their part, and (b) that failure was not the direct cause of the claimant being confined to his cell.

A

under false imprisonment Iqbal v Prison Officers Association demonstrates that it can be committed intentionally or recklessl
discuss case

50
Q

which cases demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?

A

Walker

Robinson v Ferry

51
Q

Walker demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case

A

Claimant was unlawfully blocked by a policeman in a doorway for a few seconds.
Held: Unlawful false imprisonment.

52
Q

Claimant was unlawfully blocked by a policeman in a doorway for a few seconds.
Held: Unlawful false imprisonment.

A

Walker demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case

53
Q

Robinson v Ferry demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case

A

The claimant had paid a penny to enter a wharf in order to catch a ferry but then changed his mind. The defendants refused to let him leave without paying another penny.
Held: not false imprisonment
When R entered the ferry gate, he agreed to pay a penny on both entering and leaving the ferry.

54
Q

The claimant had paid a penny to enter a wharf in order to catch a ferry but then changed his mind. The defendants refused to let him leave without paying another penny.
Held: not false imprisonment
When R entered the ferry gate, he agreed to pay a penny on both entering and leaving the ferry.

A

Robinson v Ferry demonstrates a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement?discuss case

55
Q

Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction which case discusses whether lack of consciousness matters?

A

Meering

56
Q

Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction Meering discusseswhether lack of consciousness matters?
discuss

A

a personperson 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 …

57
Q

a personperson 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 …

A

Under the second requirement that there must be a complete restriction Meering discusseswhether lack of consciousness matters?
discuss

58
Q

What are the 2 statutes under the last step of without lawful authorisation or excuse for false imprisonment?

A

prison act 1952 and

PACE 1984

59
Q

what is the rule in wilkinson v downtown in regards to the inftention infliction of emotional or physical harm
discuss the case

A

For a joke the defendant falsely told the claimant that her husband had been involved in an accident in which he had been seriously injured.
Held: “He had ‘wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the female [claimant] – that is to say, infringe her right to personal safety, and thereby in fact caused physical harm to her. That proposition, without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act’

60
Q

For a joke the defendant falsely told the claimant that her husband had been involved in an accident in which he had been seriously injured.
Held: “He had ‘wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the female [claimant] – that is to say, infringe her right to personal safety, and thereby in fact caused physical harm to her. That proposition, without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act’

A

what is the rule in wilkinson v downtown in regards to the inftention infliction of emotional or physical harm
discuss the case

61
Q

The criteria for
;intentional infliction of emotional or phyriscla harm has 3 criteria
what are they?

A

conduct element:
D must use words or conduct directed to the claimant for which there is no justification ro reasonable excuse

mental element:
the words or conduct must be intended to cause the claimant physical harm or severe mental or emotional distress

consequence element:
the claimant must suffer physical harm or a recognised psychological injury as a consequence
- Emotional distress is not sufficient.
- It is not actionable per se.

62
Q

Two cases are discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm
the first is Wilkinson v Downtwon what is the second?

A

Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53

63
Q

there are two cases discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm. The first is Wilkinson v Downtown and the second is Wainwright v Home Office
discuss the second

A

mother and her son, had been subjected to strip searches by prison officers while visiting a family member in Leeds prison, which were not conducted according to the prison rules. They were distressed
HELD:
Held: No claim under the rule in Wilkinson v Downtown as (a) not sufficient intention or recklessness to cause harm by the prison officers, and (b) no recognised psychiatric harm caused

64
Q

mother and her son, had been subjected to strip searches by prison officers while visiting a family member in Leeds prison, which were not conducted according to the prison rules. They were distressed
HELD:
Held: No claim under the rule in Wilkinson v Downtown as (a) not sufficient intention or recklessness to cause harm by the prison officers, and (b) no recognised psychiatric harm caused

A

there are two cases discussed under the intentional infliction emotional or physical harm. The first is Wilkinson v Downtown and the second is Wainwright v Home Office
discuss the second

65
Q

What is the purpose of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998?

A

It goes beyond the common law by giving protection to distress which is not a medically recognised psychiatric injury.

66
Q

What is the test under the Protection from harrassment act 1998?

A

would a reasonable person think the conduct amounted to harassment
(dilberately broad)

67
Q

generally a single action will not be sufficient. What would count?

A

conduct on at least 2 occasions in relation to a single person

68
Q

what did the case of Law Society v Kordowski hold in relation to the Protection From Harrasssment Act 1998?

A

The defendant was the founder, operator and publisher of the “Solicitors from Hell” website. Members of the public were invited, in return for a fee, to “name and shame” solicitors.
Held: Publication of information about a person on a website could amount to a course of conduct.

69
Q

The defendant was the founder, operator and publisher of the “Solicitors from Hell” website. Members of the public were invited, in return for a fee, to “name and shame” solicitors.
Held: Publication of information about a person on a website could amount to a course of conduct.

A

what did the case of Law Society v Kordowski hold in relation to the Protection From Harrasssment Act 1998?

70
Q

which case discussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998?

A

Veakins v Kier Islington

71
Q

Veakins v Kier Islingtondiscussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998
discuss case

A

The claimant was victimised and bullied by the defendant, who was her manager at her place of work
HELD: is doubtful whether the legislature had the workplace in mind when passing an Act that was principally directed at “stalking” and similar cases. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the language of the Act which excludes workplace harassment.

72
Q

The claimant was victimised and bullied by the defendant, who was her manager at her place of work
HELD: is doubtful whether the legislature had the workplace in mind when passing an Act that was principally directed at “stalking” and similar cases. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the language of the Act which excludes workplace harassment.

A

Veakins v Kier Islingtondiscussed the ability for harassment at work to be included within the Protection from Harassment Act 1998
discuss case

73
Q

(intention application of unlawful force battery)

Wiliiams v Pringle demonstrates that horseplay is not a battery

A

D pulled a bag off C’s shoulder and injured C

NO battery because action was horseplay

**A-Tort Law (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions