Tort - Topic 1 - Trespass to the Person Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Define Assault

A

An intentional act by the Defendant causing the Claimant to reasonably apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

(R v Beasley)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define Battery

A

The intentional direct application of unlawful force to another person.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Define false imprisonment

A

Act by the Defendant, which directly and intentionally causes complete restriction of the Claimant’s liberty without lawful justification.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Within battery, define “intentional”

A

the defendant must intend only his actions, not the consequences (Wilson v Pringle)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Within Battery, define “direct application of force”

A

force must flow almost immediately and without intervention. Physical contact is not necessary.

  • Definition if ‘direct is broad (DPP, Scott v Shepherd)
  • Slight physical contact is enough (Cole v Turner), even spitting (R v Cotesworth)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Within battery (and assault), clarify “unlawful force”

A

Physical contact that is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life will not be unlawful (F v West Berkshire Health Authority)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Within Assault, clarify “intentional act”

A
  • Intentional conduct is necessary, if not, relevant tort is negligence (Letang v Cooper)
  • Words, as well as actions, may constitute an assault (R v Ireland - “a thing said is a thing done”)
  • However, words may also negate an assault (Tuberville v Savage - “We’re it not assize time”)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Within assault, define “immediate”

A

“Within a minute or so” (R v Ireland)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Within assault, clarify “apprehend”

A

tested objectively i.e. ‘would a reasonable person apprehend in those circumstances’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Within false imprisonment, clarify “act”

A

Must be an act (not omission) which is direct and intentional: Accidents are not convicted ( Sayer v Harlow)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Within false imprisonment, clarify “complete restriction”

A

If there is even one other way, no matter how inconvenient, the Defendant will not be convicted (Bird v Jones)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Is force required for false imprisonment?

A

No, words alone can commit this tort. (Davidson v C.C. of North Wales)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Defences available for trespass to the person:

A
  1. Consent
  2. Defence of the person
  3. Defence of property
  4. Necessity
  5. Ex turpi
  6. Statutory Authority
    N.B. Defendant cannot allege contributory negligence.(CoOp v Pritchard) & (Pritchard)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Defence - Consent…

A
  • May be implied or express consent
  • Medical cases: a patient is deemed to have consented to medical treatment once informed in broad terms of the nature of the intended procedure. (Chatterton v Gerson)
  • Medical cases: a doctor’s failure to disclose risks will NOT invalidate the patient’s consent. (Chester v Afshar)
  • Sports cases: a sports competitor consents not only to all conduct within the rules of the sport, but also outside the rules, but within the spirits the sport. (Condon v Basi)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Defence - Defence to the person…

A

(Cockcroft v Smith): The defendant must establish that the force was:

  • used in self-defence
  • Reasonable
  • Proportionate to the force used/threatened by the Claimant
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Defence - Defence of property…

A
  • One may take reasonable steps to defend one’s property
  • This includes taking reasonable steps to eject a trespasser (which might mean first asking trespasser to leave - Green v Goddard)
17
Q

Defence - Necessity…

A

Defendant must show (1) that a situation of necessity existed, and (2) that his actions were reasonable

F v West Berkshire Health Authority:

  • an emergency situation where the patient is unconscious
  • a state of affairs (e.g. stroke) rendering the patient incapable of giving consent.
18
Q

Name the three types of trespass to the person:

A

Assault

Battery

False Imprisonment