Intentional Torts: Assault and Battery

Question 1

What is the key issue when dealing with Trespass to the Persons?

Answer 1

Intention:

Intention to cause harm or for them to have a reasonable apprehension that the harm will happen

Question 2

What is meant by the term ‘Actionable per se’

Answer 2

The term generally indicated ‘with or without damage’ there need not be damage done to the person (physically) in order to bring a claim of Tortious intention

Question 3

What is the difference between Criminal and Civil wrong in Trespass?

Answer 3

Different standard of proof

Question 4

What and where did ‘Tort’ come from?

Answer 4

Norman French for ‘Civil Wrongs’

Question 5

What is meant by the word Tortious?

Answer 5

For something to fall under Tort, e.g. Tortious liability

Question 6

What are the elements in Assault?

Answer 6

Elements include

1) An act by D
2) Indicating an intention to inflict harm
3) Capacity to carry it out
4) C apprehends immediate force

Question 7

What is assault?

Answer 7

Assault is the action of words, which bring about a reasonable apprehension of force to the claimant, therefore it requires for an intention, capacity and apprention of force

Question 8

Does there need to be actual physical violence?

Answer 8

No

Question 9

What is the leading precedent for intention to inflict? Give a description of the case?

Answer 9

Tuberville v Savage
‘If it weren’t for assize time, I would not take such language’
It involved a verbal fight between Tuberville and Savage which meant that, should the court and police not be in town, there would have been a lot more problems! Thus, the reasoning why Assault was brought about. However, there was a real need for apprehension which was held not to be liable as, because the police were in town, there was deemed no intention to act, like a conditional threat.

Question 10

What happened in Read v Cocker?

Answer 10

Conditional words could amount to assault. The employees threatened that break somebodies neck should they not leave the premises, this was seen as a threat and meaningful

Question 11

What was the leading case for capacity to carry out and immediacy?

Answer 11

Stephen v Myers

Question 12

What happened in the case of Stephen v Myers?

Answer 12

‘A lack of christian spirit’, parish meeting and the defendant was held back and then because he was seen to have no capacity to act, meant that he did not have the capacity to act as he was being held back! therefore because he had no way of executing his threat there was to be no reasonable apprehension of force

Question 13

What happened Thomas v National Miners’ Union?

Answer 13

A tort for assault came about from Thomas v National Miners union, whereby the miners were picketing and on strike, some had decided to go and still work although violent gestures and violent words were said, however due to the fact they had been held back by the police, no assault and battery was found

Question 14

What is the case for apprehension of immediate threat?

Answer 14

R v Ireland

Question 15

What happened in the case of R v Ireland?

Answer 15

• Apprehension of immediate threat
• There were silent phone calls and being at the door for two minutes
• was seen to be enough to constitute assault
• However was seen that obstruction was insufficient and that there was an absent apprehension of immediate threat

Question 16

What is Battery?

Answer 16

• Battery is the physical and direct application of force

Question 17

What are the three elements?

Answer 17

• Intention- necessary intent order the tort of battery to make physical contact
• Unnecessary to prove that the harm was intended
• Direct application of
• Force

Question 18

Is Intention in Battery actionable per se?

Answer 18

Yes

Question 19

What happened in Livingstone v MOD?

Answer 19

• The injured claimant does not have to be the anticipated by the defendant
• Soliders were deployed to deal with a riot situation and were shooting rubber bullets into the crowd
• Was held that there could be a claim as there is no need for there to an intention to harm just an intention to do the act

Question 20

What happened in Scott v Shepherd?

Answer 20

• The defendant throw a squib into the crowd; was thrown between three people before exploding in one persons face; this was seen as trespass. Again intention to do the act and not intention to do harm.

Question 21

What is the rule in Letang v Cooper?

Answer 21

• That carelessness and negligence will generally not be sufficient to establish intention.
• It considers that there must be an intention to make physical contact

Question 22

What happened in Letang v Cooper?

Answer 22

• Woman sunbathing on a carpark
• Man runs over her legs
• She didn’t make a claim until 1961 (happened in 1957)
• Tort of negligence and Trespass was on Intent

Question 23

Direct application of force?

Answer 23

• A police officer detains a woman in circumstances short of arrest
• There was no given consent to the hand pulling and it would amount to a battery

Question 24

What is the leading case for consent?

Answer 24

• Re B v NHS (Consent to Treatment)

Question 25

What happened in Re B v NHS?

Answer 25

The victim (claimant) was a tetraplegic patient who had refused to give consent for live saving medical treatment; 
- was held that application of force would still amount to a battery regardless of whether it was life saving

Question 26

What happened in Re F

Answer 26

• THINK F FOR FERTILISATION
• woman (no mental capacity) was sterilised without consent after going into a sexual relationship
• Was held in certain circumstances there would be times where it would be acceptable.

Question 27

What is assault?

What is battery?

Answer 27

Assault: Intent and apprehension of harm

What is battery? Intent to inflict force and it happening

Question 28

What happened in Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police?

Answer 28

• 2008 case
• Ashley was shot dead in bed during an armed police raid on his house, negligence was brought against him
• There was seen to be no reason to bring torts against the Chief Constable

Question 29

Bici v MOD?

Answer 29

• Soldiers on a peace keeping for the UN is Kosovar
• Shot man dead
• Held that they weren’t being threatened on reasonable grounds for them to be threatened and thus shouldn’t have fired
• Reckless
• Breach of Duty

Question 30

Cockcroft v Smith?

Answer 30

• 1705
• Lawyer bit off finger of clerk during a scuffle and it was held that it was not a reasonable response to the clerks threat, which involved thrusting his fingers towards the lawyers yes
• case established self defence must be in proportion

Question 31

Lumba v Secretary of State for the home department?

Answer 31

• Involved the secretary of state holding and detailing four men for their deportation, however it was held that there deportation was unlawful and inconsistent with public police.

Question 32

Tuberville v Savage?

Answer 32

• If it weren’t for assize time, you would not say such words!