Battery Flashcards
What is a battery
the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person
Ingredients of a battery
act, force, intentional, direct and immediate and unlawful
Which case indicates that a positive act is required rather than an omission
Innes v Wylie, there was a police officer standing in a door way and stopping people getting out of the door, in trying to get out of the door C ran into him. C sued the police officer for battery because he had applied force to them. The Court rejected this. They held the D must act to apply force, simply standing still and letting people run into you is not a battery. You must positively act, not fail to act. There is no duty in battery to get out of people’s way.
What was held in Fagan v MPC
A police officer stood at the side of the road and flagged in a car to search. The driver ran over the police officers foot, leaving the tyre on the officer’s foot. There is no battery at this point- there is no intention. The police officer asks him to move, which he refuses to do. Charged with assault of a police officer in the execution of his duty. Must show assault or battery. Battery needs intentional application of force. He argued he omitted to move his car. Court held it was a continuing act and the intentionality was there for the part of the act he failed to move, hence could be liable. If you apply force, told of it and refuse to then remove that force.
What degree of force is required
the degree of force is irrelevant
What did Cole v Turner say about the degree of force required
the least touching in anger is a battery
What did F v West Berkshire AHA say about the degree of force required
‘Any touching of another’s body is, in the absence of lawful excuse, capable of amounting to a battery.’
Which case did spitting amount to a battery
R v Cotesworth
In which case was it held that a hair rinse would amount to a battery
Nash v Sheen
In which case did cutting hair amount to a battery
DPP v Smith
In which case was having blood removed a battery
S v McC
In which case was it said that an unwanted kiss may be a battery although the D’s intention may be most amicable
R v CC of Devon and Cornwall, ex p Central Electricity Gaming Board
What intention is required
The act of force must be voluntary; the D does not need to intend the consequences of his actions. But, he will be liable for all the consequences flowing from that tort regardless of whether they are foreseeable or not.
Case that held move is irrelevant
Fagan v MPC
Where was the rule of transferred intent set out
James v Campbell, ‘if one of two persons fighting unintentionally strikes a third, he is answerable in an action for an assault, and the absence of intention can only be urged in mitigation of damages.’
What is the requirement of directness
It is a requirement of any trespass that the injury must be direct, if the injury is indirect the claimant must find another basis for recovery,
In which case was the requirement of directness interpreted flexibly
Scott v Shepherd: thrown a lighted squib into a market place. This was despite the fact that the squib had been thrown on by two stallholders, to protect themselves and their wares, before it exploded in the face of Scott. The majority of the court found the battery was sufficiently direct,
Case where directness was found (acid in hand dryer)
DPP V K: the force was considered sufficiently immediate and direct where a school boy poured acid into a hand-dryer, which was later used by another public. The court held that boy had known full well that he had created a dangerous situation, but he had nevertheless taken the risk of injury to another. It was not excuse that he had panicked and intended to remove the acid as soon as he was able.
Case which shows that contact via an agent will still be sufficiently direct
Dodwell v Burford, held that a horse may be used as an animate agent
Case where contract via clothing is direct
Pursell v Horn, C’s shirt got covered in water, this was held to be a battery. Express consent
What have the courts had difficulty doing in regards to immediacy
drawing the line between actionable batteries and contact of ordinary social conduct
What was held in the was of Wilson v Pringle
boy had suffered serious injury due to a fellow student. The defence alleged that the defendant had merely pulled the schoolbag off the schoolboy’s shoulder, which had led to him to fall on the ground and injure himself. The court held that liability depended on whether the pupil’s actions had been ‘hostile’ and not simply a schoolboy prank.
why has hostility been criticised
What may seem hostile to one person may not to another. Even if an objective test is adopted, it simply seems to mean that the reasonable person would view the action as contrary to the ordinary rules of social conduct.
What is the view of Collins v Wilcock regarding social conduct
preferable view is that instead of adopting complicate legal rules based on implied consent of battery, or hostile intend, the law should just exclude liability for conduct generally accepted in the ordinary conduct of
What is the lawfulness requirement
There is no unlawfulness where there is express consent- but who bears the burden of proof?
Which case indicates that there can be battery by common design
Shah v Gale: gang members were classed as joint forfeasors where one assisted in the stabbing of the claimant
Another case for battery by a group
Fish & Fish v Sea Shepherd
What are the remedies for battery
damages
