Intentional Tort Flashcards
What are the three ways in which trespass to the person can be committed?
- Battery
- Assult
- False imprisonment
Must there be damage for a claim to succeed?
No. They all require direct, intentional acts and are actionable per se, that is complete without the need of damage
What is the definition of assult and what case provides it?
Lord Goff in Collins v Wilcock
“An act which causes another person to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force upon his person”
Can assult be committed by subject recklessness?
Yes. A defendant may force their act will have relevant consequences
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (2009)
Was charged with battery - throw a stone in a crowded area
What are the elements for assult?
- The defendant intends that the claimant apprehends the application of unlawful force
- The claimant reasonably apprehends the immediate and direct application of unlawful force
- For which the defendant has no lawful justification or excuse
Why is the need for imminent danger?
Provide a case example…
There is no assult on a claimant unless he/she is made tot hiupbk that they are in imminent danger of being attacked.
Tuberville v Savage (1669)
it was held that Tuberville did not commit an assult when he drew his sword on Savage “if it were not assize-time I would not take such language”
As it was assize time, Tuberville’s words did not lead Savage to believe that Tuberville was about to strike him with a sword”
What happens if the claimant knows the assault cannot be carried?
Stephen v Myers [1986]
Thomas v NUM [1986]
If the claimant known that the defendant is not in a position to commit assult there can be no assult.
“There must be means of carrying out the threat”
- The claimant were coal miners who wishes to go to work during the miners strike
- As they entered, the colliery where they worked
- They suffered abuse and threats
- They sought to obtain an injection against the defendants
- Claim rejected: the claimants were already driven away and were separated from the defendants by policemen
Does the threat (assult) need to be imminent?
R v Ireland [1998]
Not always - it is not clear for this requirement
- D made a serious of phone calls to three women
- When they answered he remained silent
- All women developed psychiatric illness as a result of the defendant
- Charged with assult and actual bodily harm
- Conviction upheld: silent phone calls could have led the women in question to believe they were about to be attacked by whoever was calling -
The claimant must reasonably apprehend immediate infliction of unlawful force - expand on this
For an assult to be committed, the claimant must be made to think that he/she is about to be attacked
What is the test for determining to assult?
Stephen v Myers [1830]
Claimant must have reasonably expected an immediate assault
- The defendant made a violent gesture at the claimant
- By waving a clenched fist
- But was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third-party
- The defendant was liable for assult
What must the defendant intent to do?
- To have acted voluntarily
- To have intended to cause the claimant apprehend the application of immediate unlawful force
- To be subjectively reckless to the possibility that their actions would cause this apprehension
What did Lord Scott say in Thomas v National Union Miners [1986]
“I do not understand how the most violent threats or gesture could be said to constitute an assault”
Battery
For the tort of battery to be committed, a defendant must have directly and voluntarily applied force to the claimant’s body
What are the three elements for battery?
- Intentional application of unlawful force (touching or contact)
- Direct and immediate
- No lawful justification (no defence)
Element 1 of battery:
Intentional application of unlawful force:
There must be contact from the defendant to the claimant. It will also be satisfied if
(i) the claimant is hit by something thrown baby the defendant, whether or not the defendant intended to throw the thing at the claimant
(Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984]
(ii) if the defendant removes something that the claimant is sitting on, with the result that the claimant falls on the ground
D could be liable without the intent to cause harm, just intent to apply force
(Williams v Humphrey [1975]
Element 1 Continued: Initial action voluntary
This element will not be satisfied where the defendant was not in control of his body at the time he touched the claimant
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]
- D accidentally drove his car onto a police officers food
- D became aware but failed to remove the car
- His initial act was unintentional BUT failure to remove the car satisfied the element of intent
Element 2: Direct and immediate
The requirement that the defendant directly apply force to the claimant’s body is a major limit on the scope of the tort of battery.
Thomas v NUM [1986] - where the claimant although violently threatened was safe inside a van with police escort
What did Wilson v Pringle [1987] and Lord Goff in F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] as on intent and hostile touching?
Wilson v Pringle “an intent to injure is not essential to an action for battery”
- A schoolboy during ‘horse play’ pulled on a friends bag, which caused him to fall
- He injured his hip
- HELD: The defendant could not have been held to have committed a battery unless he acted in a hostile way
Lord Goff
‘hostile way’ was not adequately explained. Hostile = ‘touching of another’s body, beyond the bounds of acceptable everyday conduct’
Battery and the element of causation
Scott v Shepherd [1773]
- Defendant threw a lighted squid (small bomb) made of gunpowder, into a market, it landed near Y who threw it across the marketplace
- It landed next to R who picked it up and threw it to another part of the marketplace
- The bomb then stuck S in the face causing loss of use of his eye
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
There was no break in the chain of causation novus actus interveniens
What is false imprisonment?
Collins v Wilcock per lord Goff “Unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place”
What are the element of false imprisonment?
- Defendant must intend to restrict the claimant’s freedom of movement
- No need to show force or resistance
- No need to show damage : Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]
- Any action that completely deprives freedom and has no lawful excuse
What are the element of false imprisonment?
- Defendant must intend to restrict the claimant’s freedom of movement
- No need to show force or resistance
2.
What amounts to actionable false imprisonment?
- Restriction of freedom : The requirement is that a claimant’s freedom of movement be completely restricted to a defined area
Bird v Jones [1845]
- The claimant was prevented from walking along a public right of way by the defendant
- Who has set up a partial obstruction
- Claimant not falsely imprisoned because his freedom of movement has only been restricted in one direction
Intention: the defendant must intend to restrict freedom (expand)
The defendant must have done a positive act that directly resulted in the restriction
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010]
- A number of person warders failed to turn up to work
- With the result that the claimant prisoner could not be led out of his cell at the time he would normally be let out
- The prisoner warder’s failure to turn up to work did not make them liable to the claimant for false imprisonment
