Trespass to Person

Question 1

What is trespass to person?

Answer 1

This is a tort that seeks to protect an individual against an infringement of their personal or bodily integrity.

These include:
Battery
Assault
False Imprisonment

Question 2

What do these three torts have in common?

Answer 2

1) D must have intended the conduct and consequences of their actions
2) Ds actions must cause direct of immediate harm
3) these are actionable without proof of loss.

Question 3

What is Assault?

Answer 3

Goff LJ defines this in Collins v Wilcock as:

‘an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person’

Question 4

What is Battery?

Answer 4

Goff LJ defined this in Collins v Wilcock as:
‘the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person’

It is the intentional application of unlawful force to another person - physical interference with claimants body

This is any unwanted touching

Question 5

What is False Imprisonment?

Answer 5

Goff LJ defined this in Collins v Wilcock as:

‘the unlawful imposition of constraint on another’s freedom of movement from a particular place’

Question 6

Is there a new tort?

Answer 6

Wilkinson v Downton has established a new tort.

This provides a remedy for those who suffered physical or psychiatric injury as a result of another intentional conduct.

Question 7

What is the difference between negligence and trespass to person?

Answer 7

The difference between them is intention.

Trespass compensates an individual in relation to direct and intentional harm- this is for a deliberate hit

Negligence compensates an individual for unintentional or indirect harm- so an accidental injury

Question 8

Why is intention very important?

Answer 8

In trespass, if there is no intention, D will not be liable because their actions may not have been intended.

Letang v Cooper
Man drives over girl sunbathing- here he had no intention so only cause of action here is in negligence.

No intention- negligence
Intention- Trespass

Reinforced in Iqbal v Prison Officers
prisoners in cells due to officers on strike
they said: ‘it is well established that all forms of trespass require an intention act. An act of negligence will not suffice’

Question 9

What are the requirements for battery?

Answer 9

1) intentional application
2) of unlawful force
3) which is direct and immediate
4) for which D has no lawful justification or excuse

Question 10

What is the first requirement for battery?

Answer 10

Intentional application

There needs to be an intention

If D intended to punch A but ends up punching B, then they will still be liable by virtue of transferred intent: Livingstone v Ministry of Defence

They will still be liable even if they didn’t intend harm: Williams v Humphrey - D pushed C in swimming pool. C breaks ankle. D said not intended.

If Ds actions are originally unintentional but when realising doesn’t stop, they will be liable; Fagan v Met Police Commissioner- driving car on officers foot

Question 11

What is the second requirement for battery?

Answer 11

There must be unlawful touching

Battery covers all forms of contact

Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock said unlawful touching is physical contact that does not fall in the category of physical contact ‘generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’

i.e touching on busy touch won’t amount to battery

Question 12

What is the third requirement of battery?

Answer 12

There has to be direct and immediate force. It has to happen at the time.
if you throw a log at someone to hit them vs if someone later falls over the log
this is difference between battery and negligence

Question 13

What are the requirements for assault?

Answer 13

this is not physical contact but the anticipation of such contact that makes for assault.

So C must anticipate battery by D- C thinking D will hit them

Requirements:

1) D intends C to apprehend application of unlawful force
2) C reasonable apprehends this
3) D has no lawful justification or excuse

Question 14

What is the first requirement for Assault?

Answer 14

Intention

D must intend to cause claimant to apprehend immediate unlawful force.
must make them believe they are going to hit them

Question 15

What is the second requirement for assault?

Answer 15

C must reasonably apprehend that D is going to hit them

they should really think D will hit them

Stephens v Myers
D being disruptive in meeting and threatened C with violence. D was walking up to C with clenched fist but stopped. D liable for assault

Question 16

What are the requirements for false imprisonment?

Answer 16

1) D must intend to
2) completely restrict the claimant freedom of movement
3) without lawful justification or excuse

Question 17

What is the first requirement for false imprisonment?

Answer 17

D must intend to confine C

doesn’t have to be falsely imprisoning them but simply confining them is sufficient

Esegbona v King’s College Hospital Foundation NHS Trust- patient falsely imprisonment for almost 5 months- let her in hospital for longer than needed

Question 18

What is the second requirement for false imprisonment?

Answer 18

There needs to be a complete restriction on the claimants freedom of movement

There is no false imprisonment if C can move in the other direction: Bird v Jones; Hicks v Young, or there is a means of escape they are aware of

If C is completely restricted, it doesn’t matter how long this restriction lasts

Walker v Commissioner for Met Police - being falsely imprisoned in doorway by officer for few seconds is sufficient

C doesn’t need to know they are being falsely imprisoned

Question 19

What is the third requirement for false imprisonment?

Answer 19

It has to be without legal authorisation
It has to be unlawful

Austin & Others v Commissioner for Met Police
police cordoned off group of people in demo. C was caught up in it and held for several hours. Court said police actions were lawful and proportionate.

Can prisoners be falsely imprisoned ? Yes- Lumba v SOS for home department

Question 20

What are defences are available?

Answer 20

Consent
Necessity
Self Defence

Question 21

Explain the defence of consent

Answer 21

If C consents to the touching, or imprisonment, D won’t be liable.

There is implied consent of every day life: Collins v Wilcock

Medical treatment: consent /inability to consent
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland- Turning off life support
Conjoined twins case

Question 22

Explain the defence of Necessity

Answer 22

D can rely on necessity if what they did was necessary in the situation

Ds actions must be: Reasonable, Proportionate and Based on Honest Belief

This can be used in medical cases: Conjoined twins case

Question 23

Explain the defence of Self Defence

Answer 23

D can rely on this defence if they were acting in self defence to protect themselves

1) the belief must be both honest and reasonable: Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex
2) The actions must be proportionate to the force exerted against you:

Lane v Holloway- C thought he was going to be hit, so punched D. D struck C in eye. C needed 18 stitches

Cockroft v Smith- C pointed a finger at D, D bit his finger off