Battery Flashcards
Requirements for tort of BATTERY
(1) Application of DIRECT and IMMEDIATE force
(2) Intention on the part of the defendant
(3) The application must be unlawful (no defences)
(1) Application of direct and immediate force
Usually a straightforward element of the tort - simply need to show that pressure has been applied on another person.
Scott v Shepard (1773)
Old case - market scene practical joke - threw a ‘lighted squib” - landed and thrown around between people instinctively before eventually exploding in someone’s face.
Held to be direct and immediate force - ANYTHING THAT IS THE NATURAL AND PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE OF D’S ACTIONS = DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE.
Breslin v McKenna [2009]
Northern Ireland
Injury caused by detonation of a bomb, even if there is substantial delay from when it is placed = direct and immediate.
Reinforces Scott v Shepard - need not be actually direct physical contact to satisfy the ‘direct and immediate force’ requirement.
Letang v Cooper
Authority that there must be INTENTION on the part of the defendant to commit the tort.
Case where driver ran over legs of sunbathing woman. (Woman was time-barred from claim in negligence.)
For physical wrongs caused unintentionally, NO cause of action in trespass torts, only negligence.
Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984]
Northern Ireland case - notion of transferred intent
Soldiers fired baton rounds at group of rioters in all directions - hit plaintiff who they had not intended to hit.
Plaintiff succeeded, despite D’s intention was to hit others.
Intention was transferred.
Bici v Ministry of Defence [2004]
Confirms that Livingstone is authoritative in England and Wales.
H of L approved Livingstone as good law.
Recklessness (subjective) suffices for intention in intentional trespass torts. - However - held that soldiers in Bici NOT reckless - thus suggestion that recklessness suffices merely obiter - cite with caution.
Collins v Wilcock [1984]
Police officer’s arm scratched by prostitute in the course of being arrested.
Initially, law dictated that there NEED NOT be an element of hostility to the intention - just simply needs to go beyond what is considered everyday ‘jostling’ within society that we all impliedly consent to.
Wilson v Pringle [1987]
Court departed from Collins v Wilcock RE hostility
Held: must be an element of hostility in the intention. Without hostility, battery not committed.
Case - 2 boys involved in horseplay - one grabbed bag off the other’s shoulder and fell to the ground.
Intention not about the injury - intention relates to committing the act - hostility is a matter of fact.
F v West Berkshire AHA [1990]
Case about sterilisation of sexually-active mental woman.
RETURNED TO POSITION IN COLLINS V WILCOCK - NEED NOT BE ELEMENT OF HOSTILITY IN INTENTION.
= current position of the law.
Fagan v MPC
Car - foot case.
Held that whilst there wasn’t initially a coincidence between the intention and the application of force, D acquired the intention in the course of the incident.
