INTN

Question 1

What are intentional torts and their significance in tort law?

Answer 1

Definition: Intentional torts are wrongful acts done on purpose that cause harm to another person. They are fault-based torts requiring intentional or reckless conduct.
Types:
Trespass to the Person: Includes assault, battery, and false imprisonment.
The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton: Covers intentional infliction of harm by indirect means.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997: Addresses persistent harassment.
Case References:
Assault: Tuberville v Savage (1669) - Words can negate assault.
Battery: Collins v Wilcock (1984) - Any unwanted physical contact.
False Imprisonment: Bird v Jones (1845) - Complete restriction of movement.
Wilkinson v Downton (1897) - Intentional infliction of severe emotional distress.
OPO v Rhodes (2015) - Modern authority on intentional infliction of harm.

Question 2

What constitutes an assault in tort law?

Answer 2

Definition: An act causing another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force.
Elements:
Intentional Infliction: The defendant must intend to cause fear of harm.
Reasonable Apprehension: The fear must be reasonable.
Immediate and Direct Harm: The threat must be imminent.
Case References:
R v Ireland; R v Burstow (1997): Silent phone calls can constitute assault if they cause fear of immediate violence.
Stephens v Myers (1830): A threat made with the ability to immediately carry it out can be assault.
Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) (1986): No assault if the defendant lacks the immediate capacity to carry out the threat.

Question 3

What are the key elements of battery in tort law?

Answer 3

Definition: The intentional application of direct and immediate force to another person without lawful justification.
Elements:
Intentional Application: Must be a deliberate act or reckless indifference.
Direct and Immediate Force: The force must be directly applied.
Actionable Per Se: No need to prove actual damage.
Case References:
Collins v Wilcock (1984): Unlawful touching constitutes battery.
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969): Battery can be a continuing act.
Breslin v McKevitt (2011): Recklessness can satisfy the intent requirement.

Question 4

What constitutes false imprisonment in tort law?

Answer 4

Definition: The unlawful restraint of a person’s freedom of movement.
Elements:
Complete Restriction: The claimant’s freedom must be wholly confined.
Without Lawful Authorization: The restraint must be unauthorized.
Case References:
Bird v Jones (1845): No false imprisonment if there is no complete restriction.
R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2) (2001): Overdetention can constitute false imprisonment.
Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (2014): Even momentary confinement is actionable.

Question 5

What is the Rule in Wilkinson v Downton and its application?

Answer 5

Definition: A tort covering intentional infliction of severe emotional distress by indirect means.
Elements:
Outrageous Conduct: The act must be extreme and outrageous.
Intention to Cause Distress: The defendant must intend to cause severe distress.
Resulting Harm: The claimant must suffer physical harm or a recognized psychiatric illness.
Case References:
Wilkinson v Downton (1897): Established the tort for intentional infliction of mental distress.
Wainwright v Home Office (2003): Defining the scope of intent.
OPO v Rhodes (2015): Modern interpretation requiring a conduct element, mental element, and consequence element.

Question 6

What are the defenses available for claims of trespass to the person and the Rule in Wilkinson v Downton?

Answer 6

Consent: The claimant consented to the act.
Case Reference: R v Williams (1923): Consent must not be induced by fraud or duress.
Necessity: The act was necessary to prevent greater harm.
Principal application in medical law.
Self-Defense: The act was in reasonable and proportionate response to a threat.
Case Reference: Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex (2008): The conduct must be reasonable.
Lawful Authority: The act was authorized by law.
Case References:
R. (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011): Unlawful detention policies do not justify false imprisonment.
Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (2014): Police must act within their powers.

Question 7

What is the structure for answering a problem question on intentional torts?

Answer 7

1. Identify the Intentional Tort Committed

Determine if it is assault, battery, false imprisonment, or under Wilkinson v Downton.
Case References: Include relevant cases like R v Ireland (1997) for assault, Collins v Wilcock (1984) for battery, Bird v Jones (1845) for false imprisonment, and Wilkinson v Downton (1897) for intentional infliction of harm.
2. Establish the Elements of the Tort

Assault: Intentional act, reasonable apprehension, immediate threat.
Case References: R v Ireland (1997), Tuberville v Savage (1669).
Battery: Intentional application of force, direct and immediate, without lawful excuse.
Case References: Collins v Wilcock (1984), Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969).
False Imprisonment: Complete restriction of movement, without lawful authorization.
Case References: Bird v Jones (1845), Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (2014), Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (2009).
Wilkinson v Downton: Outrageous conduct, intent to cause distress, resulting harm.
Case References: Wilkinson v Downton (1897), OPO v Rhodes (2015).
3. Analyze the Facts Using Legal Principles

Apply the facts of the case to the elements of the tort.
Discuss the directness and immediacy of the action.
Examine the intent and any resulting harm.
4. Consider Possible Defenses

Consent: Was there valid consent?
Case Reference: R v Williams (1923).
Necessity: Was the act necessary to prevent greater harm?
Self-Defense: Was the act reasonable and proportionate?
Case Reference: Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex (2008).
Lawful Authority: Was the act legally authorized?
Case References: R. (on the application of Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011), Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (2014).
5. Conclude with Likely Outcomes

Summarize the likelihood of the claim succeeding based on the analysis.
Suggest appropriate remedies (damages, injunctions).

Question 8

What does the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 cover and what are its key cases?

Answer 8

Definition: Prevents a course of conduct that amounts to harassment and which the defendant knows or ought to know is harassment.
Elements:
Course of Conduct: Must involve at least two incidents.
Knowledge: The defendant knew or should have known the conduct amounted to harassment.
Case References:
Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Trust [2006]: Employers can be vicariously liable for harassment by employees.
Hayes v Willoughby [2013]: Actions must be rational and guided by an objective assessment of evidence.
Ferguson v British Gas Trading [2009]: Persistent sending of unjustified bills and threatening letters can constitute harassment.

Question 9

What are the elements of the tort under Wilkinson v Downton?

Answer 9

Outrageous Conduct: The defendant’s actions must be extreme and outrageous.
Intention to Cause Distress: The defendant must intend to cause severe emotional distress.
Resulting Harm: The claimant must suffer physical harm or a recognized psychiatric illness.
Case References:
Wilkinson v Downton (1897): Established the tort for intentional infliction of mental distress.
Wainwright v Home Office (2003): Clarified the need for intentionality and harm.
OPO v Rhodes (2015): Defined the three elements: conduct, mental, and consequence.

Question 10

What are the key elements and cases of false imprisonment?

Answer 10

Definition: False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person’s freedom of movement.
Elements:
Complete Restriction: Total restraint of the claimant’s movement.
Unlawful: Without legal justification or authority.
Case References:
Bird v Jones (1845): Partial obstruction without total restraint is not false imprisonment.
R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2) [2001]: Overdetention due to miscalculation is false imprisonment.
Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (2014): Brief but total restraint is sufficient for false imprisonment.
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2009]: False imprisonment requires a positive act of confinement.

Question 11

Collins v Wilcock (1984)

Answer 11

Facts: A police officer took hold of a woman’s arm to prevent her from walking away.
Held: The court held this was battery as there was no lawful justification for the physical contact.
Significance: Established that any unwanted touching could amount to battery if done without lawful excuse.

Question 12

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969)

Answer 12

Facts: The defendant accidentally drove onto a police officer’s foot and then refused to move.
Held: The court ruled that battery could be a continuing act and not just an instantaneous action.
Significance: Highlighted that the intention to apply force could form during the course of a continuing act.

Question 13

Wilson v Pringle (1987)

Answer 13

Facts: A schoolboy injured another by jumping on him playfully.
Held: The court found that the intent to injure was not required for battery; intent to touch was sufficient if the touching was hostile.
Significance: Clarified the requirement of hostility in establishing battery.

Question 14

Bird v Jones (1845)

Answer 14

Facts: The claimant was prevented from crossing a bridge but could move in other directions.
Held: There was no false imprisonment as there was no total restraint of movement.
Significance: Established that complete restriction of movement is necessary for false imprisonment.

Question 15

Walker v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis (2014)

Answer 15

Facts: A police officer briefly stood in a doorway to prevent the claimant from leaving.
Held: The court found this brief detention was false imprisonment.
Significance: Confirmed that even a brief total restraint can constitute false imprisonment.

Question 16

R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2) [2001]

Answer 16

Facts: The claimant was detained longer than his sentence due to a miscalculation.
Held: The court ruled this constituted false imprisonment.
Significance: Highlighted that overdetention, even due to an administrative error, can amount to false imprisonment.

Question 17

Intentional Infliction of harm - Wilkinson v Downton (1897)

Answer 17

Facts: The defendant falsely told the claimant her husband was seriously injured, causing her severe shock.
Held: The court established a new tort for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Significance: Recognized the tort of intentional infliction of harm, requiring outrageous conduct, intent to cause distress, and resulting harm.

Question 18

Wainwright v Home Office (2003)

Answer 18

Facts: Claimants were strip-searched at a prison without proper procedure.
Held: The court ruled that the defendant must act in a way they know to be unjustifiable and intend to cause harm.
Significance: Clarified the requirement of intentionality for the tort under Wilkinson v Downton.

Question 19

OPO v Rhodes (2015)

Answer 19

Facts: A claim was brought to prevent the publication of a book detailing abuse suffered by the author.
Held: The court identified three elements: conduct, mental, and consequence, and ruled that the publication had justifications and did not meet the requirements of the tort.
Significance: Provided a modern interpretation of the tort, emphasizing the need for outrageous conduct, intention to cause distress, and resulting harm.

Question 20

How does Trindade critique the application of negligence in cases of intentional torts like assault and battery?

Answer 20

Main Argument: Trindade argues that actions should not be brought in negligence for what are clearly intentional acts, as seen in Williams v Humphrey (1975). The confusion arises from courts and legal texts not adequately distinguishing between intentional and negligent acts.
Key Points:
Intentional torts are often incorrectly pleaded in negligence, complicating the case and increasing costs.
Case Example: In Williams v Humphrey, the defendant’s deliberate push leading to serious injury should have been straightforwardly addressed as battery, not negligence.
Significance: Emphasizes the importance of correctly categorizing torts to maintain clarity in legal principles and reduce unnecessary legal complexities.
Quote: “It is quite clear that there was a direct intentional act by the defendant plainly sufficient to constitute a battery.”

Question 21

What is Trindade’s stance on the requirement of ‘directness’ in intentional torts, and how does it relate to the doctrine of transferred intent?

Answer 21

Main Argument: Trindade suggests that the traditional requirement of directness in intentional torts might need re-evaluation, as modern cases sometimes necessitate a broader interpretation.
Key Points:
The element of directness often removes the need for the doctrine of transferred intent, but it can complicate cases unnecessarily.
Case Example: In Scott v Shepherd (1773), the act was considered direct despite the intervention of third parties, showing the flexibility of the doctrine.
Significance: Proposes that the law should adapt to modern contexts, possibly eliminating the need for directness and focusing on the intentional nature of the act itself.
Quote: “The requirement of a ‘direct’ act certainly causes many problems and it would simplify many actions of trespass to the person if we could somehow get rid of that traditional requirement of the common law.”