Personal Torts Flashcards
Collins v Wilcock [1984] (Assault)
An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force to his person
Collins v Wilcock [1984] (battery)
a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person
Collins v Wilcock [1984] (False imprisonment)
the unlawful imposition of constraint upon another’s freedom of movement from a particular place
Stephens v Myers [1830]
Assault - ‘reasonable apprehension’ is an objective test
Tuberville v Savage [1669]
Assault - the threat of force must be imminent (assize time)
R v Ireland [1998]
Assault - the possibility of immediate force will suffice
What case shows the apprehension for assault is judged objectively?
Stephens v Myers [1830]
What case shows the threat of assault must be imminent?
Tuberville v Savage [1669]
Cole v Turner (1704)
‘the least touching of another in anger is a battery’
What are the three elements of battery?
- Force
- voluntariness /intention
- direct
Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984]
Shows doctrine of ‘transferred intent’ in battery
Williams v Humphrey [1975].
D will be liable for battery even if he did not intend to cause the claimant harm (or the harm never crossed his mind)
What case shows the doctrine of ‘transferred intent’
Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984]
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969]
A battery can be committed, even if the original action by the defendant was involuntary, if the defendant has the opportunity to stop inflicting the unlawful force and fails to do so.
The unlawful touching must be a direct and immediate result of the defendants actions (interpreted flexibly)
Scott v Shepherd [1773]
it will only amount to battery where is does not fall within the category of physical contacts ‘generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’
Collins v Wilcock [1984]
Collins v Wilcock [1984]
it will only amount to battery where is does not fall within the category of physical contacts ‘generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’
R v Governor of Brockhill Prison [2001]
The defendant needs to intend to restrict the claimants freedom of movement, it is not necessary for the defendant to do so unlawfully
Bird v Jones [1845]
The complete restriction of the claimants movement will not be satisfied if the claimant is able to move in another direction
Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd [1910]
Where the defendant imposes reasonable conditions on the manner in which the visitors leaves his premises, the restriction of the claimants freedom will not be considered ‘complete’. (= no false imprisonment).
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010]
False imprisonment requires a positive act and cannot be committed by an omission.
False imprisonment requires a positive act and cannot be committed by an omission.
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010]
Though it is necessary to show a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement, the claimant need not be aware of the restriction
Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]
Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]
Though it is necessary to show a complete restriction of the claimants freedom of movement, the claimant need not be aware of the restriction
