trespass to the person Flashcards
battery
‘is the intentional and direct application of force to another person.
it is a straightforward tort
intentional use of force
- battery requires the D intentionally makes contact w/the body or clothing of the claimant.
accidental use of force case:
Letang V Cooper
FACTS:
- the D accidentally drove over the claimant’t legs whilst she was sunbathing in a car park.
- she sought damages on the basis of trespass to the person as as a claim in negligence was time barred.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- The claimant could NOT recover damages on the basis of trespass to the person as the D actions were NOT intentional, accident.
Lord Denning reiterated the mutually exclusive operation of negligence and trespass to a person…
‘If the action is intentional, it is a tort of assualt and battery. If negligent and causing damage, it is the tort of negligence. The C only cause of action in the case of Letang, (where the damage was unintentional’ was NEGLIGENCE and not trespass to the person.
WARNING ON BATTERY AND NEGLIGENCE
DO NOT mix up liability for battery and negligence…
intentional action: BATTERY
unintentional action: NEGLIGENCE
cannot be liable for both, as it contradicts.
DIRECT APPLICATION OF FORCE:
battery requires that force is applied directly to the body of the claimant, as a result of the D intentional act.
the requirement of directness has been interpreted broadly by the courts.
contact by a third party:
- Scott V Shepard: the D threw a lighted squib into a crowded market. it was thrown again by a third party to prevent damage to his stall, hitting the victim in the eye.
The D was STILL liable regardless of the third-party intervention.
contact made indirectly:
- Pursell V Horn 1838:
the D threw water over the claimant and was liable despite the indirect nature of the contact.
direct contact w/the wrong person:
Livingston V MoD:
- a solider fired at a rioter but missed and struck the wrong person.
- the doctrine of malice ( D intends to hit A but misses and hits B) was used to establish liability for this battery
level of force:
‘force’ to describe the contact required between D and C is misleading….
there is NO requirement that battery causes harm, indicating that the level of force may be extremely low.
Cole V Turner: held that the ‘the least touching in anger was battery’
the reference to anger has been interpreted to mean that the contact must be ‘hostile’
Collins V Wilcock 1984: which has in turn been interpreted to mean that actions were ‘unlawful’
F V West Berkshire: in the sense of being non-consensual
BUT….
just because the claimant has NOT suffered a injury, does NOT mean there is NO battery.
there is no requirement of harm for a battery, unlike the tort of negligence which requires that harm be caused to the claimant.
ASSAULT:
an assault, is an act which causes another person to apprehend infliction of immediate unlawful force on his person…
Collins V Wilcock
Assault v battery
Assault: the D causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence.
e.g. the victim sees that an attack is imminent
Battery: the D applies non-consensual physical contact to the victim’s body.
e.g. the attack on the victim takes place.
intentional act:
assault requires a DELIBERATE act by the D.
orgininally, ‘no words or singing can amount to assault’
R V Meade and Belt 1823…
BUT, it is now clear that assault can be committed by words as well as conduct. R v Ireland 1998
words as assault…
R v Ireland 1998:
FACTS:
- the D made silent telephone calls to the victims.
- In dealing w/the issue of silence as assault, HOL talked the issue of words as an assault.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
- The proposition that ‘words can never suffice (for the basis of assault) is unrealisitic and indefensible.
there is NO reason why something said should be capable of causing an apprehension of immediate personal violence: Lord Steyn.
