Battery Flashcards
What does trespass against the person consist of?
Set out in Collins v Wilcok, 3 torts:
Battery
Assault
False imprisonment
What elements are required for any tort of trespass to the person?
1) There must be intention
2) They must case direct and immediate harm
3) They are actionable per se (i.e. no need to prove it any further)
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association
‘there must be an intentional act, an act of negligence will not suffice’. - INTENTION IS KEY
Subjective recklessness satisfies intention
What is subjective recklessness (example)?
C throws a rock into a crowd not intending to hit anyone but knowing it is likely that it may hit someone
Scott v Shepherd
Example of direct and immediate harm…
D threw a squib which was thrown on by two people it was about to hit. It subsequently caused C to lose their sight in one eye. D was liable for trespass. He tried to argue it was not a direct act because the others threw the squib on. Held it was the direct and unlawful act of the D who originally and intended to throw the squib. The other people were not ‘free agents’ because they had to throw the squib for their safety.
Definition of battery + case…
Wilcock v Collins: ‘the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person’
What are the elements to battery?
1) intentional application…
2) of unlawful force…
3) which is direct and immediate
What is meant by intentional application?
Intent or subjective recklessness
Transferred intent is also prevalent here
Livingstone v Ministry of Defence
soldier aimed to hit someone, hit C instead – liable because of transferred intent
Williams v Humphrey
The ACT needs to be intentional, not the HARM…
pushed C into a pool and they broke their ankle. D tried to argue there was no claim because he had not intended to cause the harm. This didn’t matter because the act to push was intended
Fagan v Metropolitan Policy Commissioner
An involuntary act can become intentional if D doesn’t withdraw the original act…
C drove onto a police officers foot, when asked to remove it he did not. Refusal to move it satisfied the requirement of intention.
What is meant by ‘unlawful force’? + case
Collins v Wilcock – contact will amount to battery where it doesn’t fall within the category of contact which is ‘generally acceptable in ordinary conduct of daily life’
CA: just as difficult to define as Pringle ‘unlawful if it is hostile’. Still both subjective. This is better as it considers context
