Trespass to the Person Flashcards
Innes v Wylie
Battery must be an intentional act, not an omission
Letang v Cooper
If not intentional act, sue in negligence
Fowler v Lanning
Must be intentional act with fault on the part of the defendant
Wilson v Pringle
Intention relates to contact and not harm
Livingstone v MoD
Doctrine of transferred malice applies
Scott v Shepherd
D threw lit firework into crowded market, was thrown by various intervening parties before exploding - still direct act
Dodwell v Burford
Hitting a horse, causing it to run off and the defendant to fall off is a direct act
Hopper v Reeve
D drove carriage intentionally into the claimant’s - direct act via carriages
DPP v K
D placed sulphuric acid in handdryer which claimant used - both had contact with handdryer, both had contact with acid = direct act
Cole v Turner
Merest touch is sufficient
R v Cotesworth
Spitting on clothing is sufficient
Nash v Sheen
D dyed claimant’s hair without consent and suffered allergic reaction - application of force
F v West Berkshire HA
Hostility does not mean malevolence, it means that the claimant would not consent to that contact
Chatterton v Gerson
Lower threshold for consent in battery than in negligence
R v Williams
Claimant must understand purpose of battery to consent
Appleton v Garrett
Unnecessary dental work for financial gain - consent not valid as claimant did not know purpose of treatment
R v Richardson
Struck-off dentist - consent was valid as knew purpose and nature of treatment
R v Tabassum
Not qualified to carry out breast cancer exams - consent invalid as did not know the purpose of the contact
Re A (conjoined twins)
Separation of conjoined twins to avoid greater evil allowed (both would have died)
Lane v Holloway
Response must be proportionate - claimant was 23 and defendant 64
Percy v Hall
Defence of statutory authority (lawful arrest)
R v H (reasonable chastisement)
Limits to what you can do to discipline children, limited by ECHR 3
Co-op Group v Pritchard
Contributory negligence not available as matter of law
R v Wilson
Words or gestures can constitute assault
Tuberville v Savage
Words can negate an assault
Read v Coker
Intentional act can be conditional
R v St George
Apprehension has to be reasonable and can be negated by impossibility
Thomas v NUM
Miner in an armoured vehicle - not reasonable apprehension
Stephens v Myers
Apprehension of battery but for the intervention of a third party is sufficient
R v Ireland
Silent phone calls could cause reasonable apprehension of immediate battery
R v Governor of Brockhill Prison
Restraint must be intentional (no fault required as to unlawfulness)
Bird v Jones
Prevented from walking on part of bridge - not false imprisonment as free to take alternative route
Robinson v Balmain Ferry
C refused to pay to return through a turnstile - had consented to the restriction
Herd v Weardale Steel
Miner was refused permission to leave mine early (trapped underground) - would now be considered under HRA
Murray v MoD
C does not need to know that they are falsely imprisoned
Meering v Grahame-White Aviation
C does not need to know they are falsely imprisoned - unaware that colleagues had been instructed not to let him leave
Sayers v Harlow UDC
Must be a direct act
