new battery

Question 1

battery

Answer 1

intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person

Question 2

3 elements to establish battery

Answer 2

1. intentional application of unlawful force. (‘intentional’)
2. direct and immediate contact with the claimant. (‘direct’)
3. lack of lawful justification or excuse for the defendant’s actions. (‘unlwaful’)

Question 3

(1) ‘intention’ of battery

Answer 3

can either be
1. an intention (i.e. setting out) to apply force to another person; or
2. recklessness as to (i.e. foreseeing the likelihood of) one’s actions causing the application of force to another person.

SO THE D MUST EITHER INTEND TO APPLY FORCE TO ANOTHER PERSON OR BE RECKLESS ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS

Question 4

intent must exeed physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life., and must be applied to the cliamant by immeidte and direct means. which case highlights this ?

Answer 4

collins v wilcock

Question 5

futher point intent:

transferred intent

Answer 5

if the defendant intends to make contact with one person but instead touches another, the tort of battery is committed against the unintended recipent.

Question 6

which case highlights transferred intent

Answer 6

livingstone v ministry of defence

Question 7

further point intent:

compensation for liability

Answer 7

even if defendant didnt intent to cause the claimant harm, or possibly of causing harm never crossed their mind, they will still be liable to compensate the claiamt for any harm suffered.

Question 8

which case highlights this compensation for liability?

Answer 8

williams v humphrey

(In Williams v Humphrey [1975], the defendant pushed the claimant into a swimming pool causing him to fall awkwardly and break his ankle. The defendant argued that he did not intend to hurt the claimant, but this did not matter. He had clearly intended to touch the claimant and there is no further requirement of intending any injury that follows. Similarly, a doctor who performs a medical operation without the patient’s consent will commit a battery, even though their intention is to help rather than harm the patient.)

Question 9

further point intention:

failure to cease inflicting force

Answer 9

if the defendant has the opportunity to stop inflicting unlawful force but fails to do so, they may still be liable for battery.

Question 10

which case highlights failure to cease inflicting force?

Answer 10

fagan v metropolitician police commissioner

(In Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969], a police officer was directing the defendant as to where to park when the defendant accidentally drove his car on to the police officer’s foot. Despite being aware of what he had done, the defendant deliberately left his car on the officer’s foot for a period of time, causing injury to his toe. The defendant was found guilty of criminal assault. Though Fagan’s initial—unintentional—action of stopping his car on the constable’s foot did not amount to a (criminal) assault, his failure to move his car, once he had knowledge of his car’s position and until the police officer had shouted ‘Get off my foot’ several times, did. Though this is a criminal case, the same reasoning would apply, by analogy, in the civil courts: the defendant’s failure to move his car also fulfils the intention requirement of the tort of battery.)

Question 11

(2) ‘unlawful force’/touching

Answer 11

battery covers all forms of contact exceeding what is generally acceptable in daily life

Question 12

what case highlights what constitutes as unlawful touching?

Answer 12

collins v wilcock

(case Collins v Wilcock [1984], who stated that touching will only amount to a battery where it does not fall within the category of physical contacts ‘generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’ (at 1177). What is considered generally acceptable will depend on the context. So, while you wouldn’t expect to be pushed while in the queue at the Post Office, being jostled at the bar in a busy nightclub is more likely to be seen as something about which people cannot reasonably complain and so considered ‘generally acceptable’).

Question 13

lawful justification or excuse

Answer 13

the defendant may avoid liability for battery if they had a lawful justificiation or excuse for their actions

Question 14

(3) ‘direct’ and immediate force

Answer 14

the unlwaful touching must be the direct and immediete result of the defendants actions.

Question 15

which case highlights direct and immediate force

Answer 15

scott v shepard

defendant threw firework into stall, which later blew up and damaged claimants face. even though it was a consequential rather than direct action, it still satisfied the direct and immediate rule.