Trespass to person notes- book

Question 1

What is intentional interference with the person??

Answer 1

-trespass to the person (battery,assault, false imprisonment)
-tort in Wilkinson v Downton- wilfully dping an act calculated to cause physical or emotional harm to the plaintiff.

Question 2

Battery definition

Answer 2

any act of the defendant that directly and intentionally or negligently causes some physical contact with the plaintiff’s person without his consent.

Question 3

Assault definition

Answer 3

any act of the dfendant that directly and intentionally ( or negligently) causes the plaintiff reasonably to apprehend the imminent infliction of a battery,

Question 4

False Imprisonment definition

Answer 4

an act of the D that directly and intentionally (possibly negligently) causes the plaintiff’s confinement within an area delimited by the defendant.

Question 5

Trespass v Negligence

Answer 5

hitorically requirement for bring writ of trespass vi et armis was directness so capable of being satisfied by intentional and unintentional conduct.
Now, distinction between negligence( unintentional wrong) and trespass (intentional wrong)

distinction in Fowler v Lanning (onus of proving negligence on P, Diplock J thought T could still be comitted neg but P would have to prove neg and resulting harm

Question 6

Letang v Cooper

Answer 6

sunbathing, ran over legs with jag, writ issued more than 3 years later passed stat for neg. P claimed she could sue for tresspass (limitation=6 yrs) succeeded in HC but CA held action was time barred and dismissed
Lord denning- divide cases up as to did D intentoionally injure or unintentionally ( in sich case only action is neg and then on proof of want of reasonable care

Question 7

Wilson v Pringle quote

Answer 7

Croom Johnson LF “it has long been the law that claims arising out of an unintentional trespass must be made in negligence”

Question 8

advantages to sueing in trespass

Answer 8

-respass is actionable per se- no need to prove damage
- remoteness req in neg can be problematic in neg D only responsible for injuries or harm thats reasonably foreseable, in trespass all dmaage from from unlawful act is gnerally recoverable
-onus shifts to D to show they acted neither intentionally nor negligently.

Question 9

requirement for intentional or negligent…

Answer 9

means the act which caused the harm must be intentional or voluntary. It’s not ncessary that the outcome, or harm, be intended.

Breslin v McKevitt- recklessness can satisfly the intention requirement for battery (Omagh bombing)

Question 10

two possible meanings of ‘intentional act’

Answer 10

1. D intending only to ACT how they did
2. D intended to ACT how they did AND that the reuslting contact witht he P take place

Question 11

“trsansferred consent”

Answer 11

can be applied in criminal case
is part of US law- Talmage v Smith (“the fact that the injury resulted to another than was intended does not relieve the D from responsibility)
applied also in James v Campbell
Eng/Irish judiciary have not expressed great enthuasiasm for approach

Question 12

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 12

since battery is actionable per se- it is sufficient that the D understood that his conduct was beyond the bounds of physical conduct “generally accepted in the ordinary conduct of everyday life”.

Question 13

since battery is actionable per se- it is sufficient that the D understood that his conduct was beyond the bounds of physical conduct “generally accepted in the ordinary conduct of everyday life”.

Answer 13

Collins v Wilcock

Question 14

Wilson v Pringle

Answer 14

P must show that D touching was a “hostile” touching- this should not be equated with ill-will or malevolence.
really means D is doing something to which P may object and regard as an unlaw intrusion to bodily integrity

in Wilson the allegation of one 13 year old jumping on another during horseplay in corridoor not sufficienct to establish battery.

Question 15

the term “hostile” in describing necessary state of mind in battery case

Answer 15

considered in F v West Berkshire Health Authority to be unhelpful

a surgeon carryone out op on a patient will be motivated by his best judgement as to the patients best interests rather than hostility but if Patient is compotent and refused consent to a surgery the surgeon commits a battery

Question 16

direct meaning

Answer 16

the direct application of physical contact upon the person is required. It’s insufficient that the act”causes” contact- contact must follow immediately from the act of defendant (Leame v Bray) or at least be a continuation of his act (Stevens v Myers)

Question 17

direct

physical attacks of trespass to person

Answer 17

spitting in a person’s face (R v Cotsworth)
cutting another’s hair against their will (Forde v Skinner)
overturning a chair on which another is sitting (Hooper v Reeve)

Question 18

Scott v Shepard

Answer 18

sufficient directness was held to exist where D threw a lighted squib into corwded marketplace that was tossed form one trader to another before exploded and injured P

Question 19

the act must be a positive one to amount to battery

Answer 19

Cole v Turner - Holt CJ “least touching of another in anger is a battery” but this too narrow

act must be a positive one for it to amount to a battery- mere omission or passive conduct is not enough

Innes v Wylie- policeman took active measures to prevent P from going into rom- court found for P

Question 20

issue of mere omission

Answer 20

Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner

unwittingly parked on Policeman foot, responded with verbal abuse upon asked to move, turned off engine, eventually moved
held- guilty of criminal assault (including battery) as act was continuing one
Bridge J dissented- thought it was simply a failure to act and was not sufficinet to constitute the offence

Question 21

broad meaning of the term “directly” given in…

Answer 21

Haystead v Derbyshire
D punched women in face and she droppped baby (convicted of assault including battery)
held “case of reckless and not intentional battery”

Question 22

DPP v K

Answer 22

D put dangerous acid in hand dryer. another boy suffered injury when sprayed with it, D held to have inflicted force directlt upon the other boy

Question 23

Application of force

Answer 23

some physical conduct with P is required (or with clothes)

Humphries v Connor held that removak of orange lily form coat could constitute battery- even though no froce was applied to her person

Question 24

is force or physical injury needed to satisfy requirements of a battery

Answer 24

no- Kaye v Robinson considered a battery may be shining a bright light into someone’s eyes causing injury. This appears to ignore the fact that damage is irrelevant to liability in trespass. If the harm was is intended it would be actioable as intentionally inflicted harm- if ought to have been foreseen then would be negligence (Winfield)

Question 25

Battery must be without consent

Answer 25

consent= no battery consent can be express of implied presumed consent in relation to ordinary social touching- Collins v Wilcock- touching will not be a battery if it is "contact acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life"

Question 26

consent outside boundaries of everyday life

Answer 26

medical cases- subject to issues relating to capacity, ecplicit or presumed consent will justify contact F v West Birkshire Health Authority - contact in q (surgical intervention) could not be described as "hostile" but in the absense of meaningful consen t would constitute a battery unless diffenct authority could be found for the contact - court declared it was necessary and in best interest of Patient

Question 27

an adult with full apacity has the right to....

Answer 27

-chose whether or not to consent to med treatment even if necessary -chose to eat or not even if not is likely to result in death (St George's Healthcare NHS Trust) the practise of forcible feeding is now considered a battery assuming person is of full understading (see Leigh v Gladstone)

Question 28

Assault is committed when...

Answer 28

the D has casued anothe rto reasonably apprehend imminent infliction of a battery. Reasonable apprehension determined objectively

Question 29

how is reasonable apprehension determined?

Answer 29

Objectively. If A points a gun at B in a way that B reasonably apprehends they are to be shot, A will have committed assault even though no shot was fired. (R v St George) =an act which would cause a reasonable person to apprehend an imminent battery.

Question 30

what happens when there is no apprehension of the battery before it takes place...

Answer 30

eg. a person struck form behind or whilst asleep= perosn can't sue for assault as tort consists of "a touching of the mind, not the body" (Kline v Kline) apprehension not fear is the test

Question 31

what happens in the case of an unfounded apprehension?

Answer 31

will not result in assault Thomas v Nationnal Union of Mineworkers- threats shouted held not to constitute assualt as would have been impossible to them to be carried out as they were behind police lines. Stephens v Myers- p acting chairman, d got angry and advanced as if to strike but someone intervened- assault was committed as it was reasonable for P to anticipate being struck

Question 32

do mere words constitute an assault?

Answer 32

depends on circumstances and context Dullaghan v Hillen- "filthy and insulting remark" directed as customs officer who responded by striking a person- held the remark could nto be regarded as an asault. "mere words, no matter how harsh, lying, insulting and provacative they may be can never amount in law to assault. Based on earlier authority in Meade's and Belt's Case "no words or signing are equivilant to an assault"

Question 33

can words induce fear??

Answer 33

now awknowledged that they can, R v Ireland held that words even if not accompanied by any actions could cause apprehension of immediate contact

Question 34

what happens when words amount to a threat which does not expose the P to immediate danger??

Answer 34

words accompanied by actions could amount to assault even if they are a conditional threat which do not expose the P to immediate danger Read v Coker- D collected workmen and said hed break his neck if P didn't leave- succeeded in action for assault.

Question 35

is every conditional assault actionable??

Answer 35

Turberville v Savage "if it were not assize time I would not take such langauge from you" held that it amounted to a clear statement that p would not ve assaulted= no assault

Question 36

False imprisonment definition 1 - BS

Answer 36

Blackstone- "of private wrongs" "to constitute the injury of false imprisonment there are two points requisite: 1. the detention of the person and 2. the unlawfulness of such detention...." "unlawful or false imprisonment consists of such confinement or detention without sufficient authority."

Question 37

False imprisonment definitions - irish courts

Answer 37

Fawsitt J- Dullaghan v Hillen "the unlawful and total restraint of the perosnal liberty of another whether by constraining him or compelling him to go to a particular place or confining him... or detaininghim against his will in a public place" "esseential element is the unlawful detention or unlawful restraint on his liberty" "the fact that a person is not actually aware that he is being imprisoned does not amount to evidence that he is not imprisoned" "may be effectual imprisonment wihtout walls of any kind" "detainer must be such to limit motion in all directions" "total restraint of liberty of the person" "committed by mere detention without violence"

Question 38

Total or partial restraint to constitute false imprisonment??

Answer 38

-actioable per se -courts insist on total restraint -Bird v Jones - being prevented from going one direction is not being imprisoned signifcance of case= tort only protects a person against restraint and does not give a right to absolute choice in one's movement tort will onlt be committed wher a person is confined within fixed bounds

Question 39

what does not consitute false imprisonment

Answer 39

- where a person's way is merely blocked so that they will have to return the way they came or make a diversion - they are NOT expected to risk injuring or embarrassing themselves in seeking to escape from his confinement.

Question 40

must there be intention in false imprisonment???

Answer 40

yes, D must intend tod o an act which is at least substantially certain to effect the confinement but no need to show malice even where acts in good faith may still be held liable (R v Governor of Brockhill Prison- should have released a prisoner earlier but honest mistake "does not excuse a trespass to the person" (HEpburn v CC of Thames Valley Police.)

Question 41

false imprisonment may be....

Answer 41

physical or psychological (P obeys the D in doing something they do not want to do for fear that force will be used against them) Battery can be doen unknowingly but q here is whether they ought reasonably to know they were not completely confined (Philips v GN RY) =imprisonment "without walls of any kind" (Dullaghan v Hillen)

Question 42

Philips v Great Northern Railway Co

Answer 42

-women suspected of travelling without a ticket told nott o move, waited some time eventually got in a cab. P sued for false imprisonment suceeded before jury and lost before King's Bench Division, court view was yes she had been subjected to delay but she had not "lost her liberty"- could have left the station at any time.

Question 43

Must P be aware he was falsely imprisoned???

Answer 43

No- Murray v Minister for Defence ( this case she ought to know) P need not be aware of elevant restrain to his freedom at time of confinement. wasn't always the case Herring v Boyle- headmaster refused to let boy home because mum had not paid fees. Mother took action and failed, fact he was unaware had influence on the judge.

Question 44

Successful False Im where P was unaware..

Answer 44

Meering v Grahame-WHite Aviation Co- persuaded to remain in an office, unaware that that had he tried to leave he would have been prevented from doing so, sucessful. endorsed in Murray v Ministry of Defence - Lordships made it clear that knowledge of the detention is not ncessary element of False im. prrof of a total restraint should suffice but in such circumstances nominal damages would be recoverable.

Question 45

what is the position relating to vulnerbale people leaving psychiatric facilities....

Answer 45

may be prevented form levaing in situations where they cannot look after themselves outside the facility. McN v HSE- prevented from leaving the facility on the basis that they could not care for themselves outside. held they were not detained- they were free to leave at any point porvided thye were with someone who could look after them.

Question 46

-women suspected of travelling without a ticket told nott o move, waited some time eventually got in a cab. P sued for false imprisonment suceeded before jury and lost before King's Bench Division, court view was yes she had been subjected to delay but she had not "lost her liberty"- could have left the station at any time.

Answer 46

Philips v Great Northern Railway Co

Question 47

Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke

Answer 47

-P was a miner, duing shift he belived they were asked to do unsade and in brecah of agreement with employers and asked to be taken to surface- he was not until some time later and employers sued for breach of contract successfully, P sued for false imprisionment and failed - he had chosen to go into rhe mine under conditions and had no rigth to be brought to surface "when he pleased" -approach adopted by irish courts in Burns v JOhnson

Question 48

-WHAT CASE .... P was a miner, duing shift he belived they were asked to do unsade and in brecah of agreement with employers and asked to be taken to surface- he was not until some time later and employers sued for breach of contract successfully, P sued for false imprisionment and failed - he had chosen to go into rhe mine under conditions and had no rigth to be brought to surface "when he pleased" -approach adopted by irish courts in Burns v JOhnson

Answer 48

Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke

Question 49

Burns v Johnson

Answer 49

approach of Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke adopted by irish courts fcatory workers detained until 6.30 pm under new arrangemtns whereas previously finsihing at 6- P sued unsuccessfully held that they were bound by their conditions of employment to remain at work till 6.30 -failure to realse not false impr

Question 50

What is the intentional infliction of physical or emotional harm???

Answer 50

this is a tort where a person intentionally or recklessly inflicts physical or emotional harm on another. Wilkinson v Downton- customer played a joke that Mr W was inan accident and broke his legs- compeletly false but she became so ill for some time her life was in danger- sued and jury awrded her damages

Question 51

Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas

Answer 51

-this case troubled judge in wilkinson prohibited recovery for nervous shock induced by negligence. Distinguished by Wilkinson v Downton as D was not merely negligent but had also intended to cause injury- did not intend to cause any kind of injury but merely wanted to give mrs w a fright

Question 52

outcome of wilkinson v downton was approved in which case????

Answer 52

Janvier v Sweeney D sent assistant to induce her to co-operate in obtaining employers docs by pretending that authorities wanted her for corrosponding with german spy (lover) - suffered form nervous shock court was not troubled by coultas here

Question 53

Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust

Answer 53

English CA rejected that Wilkinson could generate liability where the wrongful conduct resulted, even forseeably in harm or distree falling short of physical harm or a recognised psychiatric illness.

Question 54

English CA rejected that Wilkinson could generate liability where the wrongful conduct resulted, even forseeably in harm or distree falling short of physical harm or a recognised psychiatric illness.

Answer 54

Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust

Question 55

which case regocnised the underlying principle in Wilkinson v downton????

Answer 55

Cronin v Kostal Ireland recognised principle uderlying W vD holding that the test fro the wrongful conduct in question is that it be "gratuitous or reprehensiblle"- mere negligence would not suffice. D would have to intend to humiliate or embarrass the victim or run risk of such outcome

Question 56

is it actionable if the false statement is belived to be true???

Answer 56

Sullivan v Boylan -P harassed by debt collector - court considered that the essential elements of the tort were that the words are spoken falsely and calculated to cause physical harm. -the debt collector believed that what he was saying was true that money was actually due -it was not a false statement capable of bringing the act within Wilkinson

Question 57

what is the role of W vD nowadays???

Answer 57

-facts could come within compass of neg today -Lord Hoffman in Wainright v Home Office thought that W had no role as far as claims for psychiatric injury beacsue liability in neg would provide remedy. there are many intentional or reckless acts besides th epsoken word that can indirectly cause harm and the indirect nature of such acts would bring them outside ambit of trespass. without Wilkinson its uncertainw hether there would be a cause of action available in such cases at all as recourse to neg might be precluded if losss is regarded as too remote for that particular tort -facts of the case suggest it's real home is now neg- seen in AUs in Carrier v Bonham- McPherson J effectively recast W as a neg case approach not adopted in eng/ire

Question 58

Words can't constitute an assault

Answer 58

dullaghan v hillen

Question 59

can words constitute an assault in future???

Answer 59

-law rn may not support it but times change and it could be argued. courts have said that people say things they don't mean -defamation used to be broken into slander and lible, courts changed it mayeb they can for this tort too.

Question 60

contributory negligence and trespass actions...

Answer 60

applies to reduce damages awarded to a plaintiff where they acted unreasonably in a manner that contributed to their own injuries. Gammell v Doyle judgment held "intentionally provactaive and insulting behaviour" can constitute contrib neg.

Question 61

Powell v Boldaz

Answer 61

the making of a statement known to be false with the intention that it should be believed and with the intention of causing injury, which in fact results, is actionable.

Question 62

the making of a statement known to be false with the intention that it should be believed and with the intention of causing injury, which in fact results, is actionable.

Answer 62

Powell v Boldaz

Question 63

OPO and another v Rhodes

Answer 63

held tort of IIES can apply to actions beyond words and the tort comprises of 1. a conduce element for which there is no legitimate justification 2. a mental element: intention to cause at least severe distress 3. an outcome elemet: physical injury or recognised psychiatric injury

Question 64

case that set out three requirement for IIEM

Answer 64

OPO and another v Rhodes