Trespass 2 Person

Question 1

Letang v Cooper

Answer 1

There was no action in negligent trespass. The action must be intentional to be a trespass, if unintentional, the appropriate form of action is negligence.

Question 2

Battery

Answer 2

The intentional and direct application of force to another without their consent.

Question 3

Williams v Humphrey

Answer 3

Illustrates intention in battery. Battery is actionable if the original force was intentional even if the outcome was unforeseen.

Question 4

Bici v MOD

Answer 4

‘Transferred intent’ applies. When the defendant has intended to hit A but instead hits B he thereby becomes liable for battery to B.

Question 5

Haystead v CC Derbyshire

Answer 5

The defendant struck someone in the face causing her to drop the baby she was holding, this was held to be a battery in relation to the baby. (Directness)

Question 6

DPP v K

Answer 6

A school boy put a harmful chemical into a hairdryer and was held to have inflicted force directly and thereby liable in battery.

Question 7

Kaye v Robertson

Answer 7

Some physical contact with the claimant or his clothes is required. It was doubted whether shining light into the plaintiff’s eyes would suffice.

Question 8

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 8

Touching will not be treated as battery if it is ‘contact acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life.’ Even if it is outside consent can negate battery (ie medical situations subject to capacity).

Question 9

F v West Berkshire Health

Answer 9

The court gave extensive consideration to the tort of battery in a case of medically imposed sterilization for a mentally subnormal patient. Although this is not hostile, in the absence of meaningful consent it will constitute battery, unless a different source of authority could be found. A declaration was given that the procedure was necessary in the best interests of the patient.

Question 10

Assault

Answer 10

Is committed when the defendant has caused another to reasonably apprehend the direct and immediate application of force.

Question 11

Thomas v National Union Mineworkers

Answer 11

An unfounded apprehension will not be an action in assault. Those being transported past picket lines on buses were being threatened by those on strike, but this did not constitute assault as it would have been impossible for the threats to be carried out.

Question 12

Stephens v Myers

Answer 12

The defendant went to strike the plaintiff but someone intervened and prevented him. An assault was committed as it had been reasonable for the plaintiff to anticipate a hit.

Question 13

R v Meade

Answer 13

Words cannot constitute an assault.

Question 14

R v Ireland

Answer 14

If words caused a reasonable apprehension in the recipient, and actionable assault would have taken place.

Question 15

False imprisonment

Answer 15

The complete restraint of bodily movement which is not expressly or impliedly authorized by law.

Question 16

R v Bournewood

Answer 16

Voluntary mental patient who was kept sedated in an unlocked ward had not been under detention, despite the fact that he was in capable of leaving and was likely to be compulsorily detained if he attempted to do so. The patient had been denied his right to liberty.

Question 17

Bird v Jones

Answer 17

There is no false imprisonment if the claimant has a reasonable means of escape.

Question 18

Herd v Weardale Steel Coal

Answer 18

His false imprisonment action failed for two reasons: one, he had contractually agreed to a defined period of deprivation of liberty for the duration of his shift, and therefore the detention was deemed to be consensual. Two, the situation was the result of an omission rather than a positive act by the defendant.

Question 19

Meering

Answer 19

The claimant need not have been aware of the imprisonment for the defendant to be liable for false imprisonment.

Question 20

Ex p Evans

Answer 20

The unlawfulness is not based upon the conditions of the detention but rather the fact of the detention itself.

Question 21

Wilkinson v Downton

Answer 21

The defendant told the plaintiff falsely that her husband had been involved in a serious accident. As a result the plaintiff suffered a nervous shock. This type of damage was not actionable at the time and no action in trespass could be brought as there was no application of force upon her. A remedy was provided in tort provided that the defendant had wilfully committed an act calculated to cause physical damage to the plaintiff by indirect means.

Question 22

Wong

Answer 22

After Wilkinson v Downton the developments have been restrictive. It was held mere distress was not enough. Psychological injury would only be actionable if it constitutes a recognized psychiatric illness.

Question 23

OPO v Rhodes

Answer 23

In this case the SC rejected the attempt to extend Wilkinson v Downton to a case of reckless infliction of psychological damage.

Question 24

Wainwright v Home Office

Answer 24

The son who suffered from learning difficulties succeeded in tort of battery. Wilkinson v Downton did not apply. On the ground of insufficient proof of intention by the defendant to cause harm to the plaintiffs.

Question 25

Majrowski

Answer 25

The PHA 1997 statutory tort was used. This is possible in respect of a course of conduct pursued against a claimant which alarmed or caused distress.

Question 26

Defences to trespass against the person

Answer 26

Consent, lawful authority, self-defence, necessity

Question 27

Cooperative group v Pritchard

Answer 27

Contributory negligence is not a defence in cases of assault or battery.