Trespass to the Person & Land

Question 1

What is the tort of battery and what must be satisfied for this?

Answer 1

Act of the defendant that directly and intentionally or negligently causes some physical contact with the claimant without their consent
1. Fault
2. No Consent
3. Character of Defendant

Question 2

What do the cases on fault tell us about the defendant’s conduct?

Answer 2

• Letang v Cooper: Negligent trespass to the person can only result in liability in negligence. For a claim of battery, the act of the defendant must be intentional
• Wilson v Pringle: Battery must be intentional and hostile, i.e. something the claimant would object to and find an unlawful intrusion on their bodily integrity
• Bici v Ministry of Defence: Seems to suggest the doctrine of transferred malice can apply to battery

Question 3

What other issues must be satisfied in order for a battery to be made out?

Answer 3

• Burden of proof is on claimant to show they did not consent
• Battery can include physical acts but also any form of ‘physical molestation’ (F v West Berkshire HA)
• Contact must follow immediately from the defendants act or be a continuation of it

Question 4

How is assualt defined in tort law and what can this include?

Answer 4

Any act that directly and intentionally causes the claimant to apprehend the imminent infliction of a battery

• R v Ireland, this can include words and silence over the telephone

Question 5

What is false imprisonment?

Answer 5

Act of the defendant which directly and intentionally causes the confinement of the claimant within an area delimited by the defendant (may be able to arise negligently)
* Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal & Coke: Requires positive act, omission not enough when there is no duty to provide a means of egress
* No need to show malice, must be total constraint
* No requirement that the claimant be aware of the restraint on her freedom at the time of confinement (Murray v Ministry of Defence)

Lumba v Sos for Home Dept: If claimant knew damages are to be more than nominal. Tort is actionable without damage

Question 6

How is the tort of harassment laid down in the law?

Answer 6

Protection from Harassment Act 1997
* S1, Person can commit an offence of harassment if they know or ought to know if another person would think it harassment
* S1(3), defence if done for detecting / preventing crime
* S3, Victim can sue for either damages or an injunction
* S7, course of conduct must have been two separate occassions or more, one not enough

Hayes v Willoughby
Harassment is persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable conduct that is well known and causes fear / alarm

Note Equality Act 2010 for harassment of protected persons

Question 7

How might a person be liable for the intentional infliction of emotional harm upon another?

Answer 7

Wilkinson v Downton:Held that D, a practical joker, was liable as he had willfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the claimant. Intention might need to be imputed

O v Rhodes
Clarified the elements of the tort:
1. Conduct element, comprising actions or words directed at the claimant or a group they are in
2. Intention element, deliberately causing either physical harm or extreme mental distress to the claimant (intention cannot be imputed, nor is recklessness sufficient)
3. Consequence element, physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness
4. Defendant should have no justification or reason for their conduct

Question 8

What defences may be raised against a trespass to the person claim?

Answer 8

CONSENT
* Blake v Galloway: Consent, this can be implied from conduct. In regards to sport a person only consents to injury foreseeable in that particular game
* In Re F: Lawfulness of medical treatment to someone that cannot consent will depend on the Bolam test

SELF DEFENCE
Defendant must prove that it was necessary to use force to repel an attack and the amount of force used was reasonable
* Ashley v CC of Sussex Police: Mistaken belief is allowed provided it was reasonable and the necessity and reasonableness requirements are met
* Defence of another person would likely be allowed for anyone, does not require special relationship

Question 9

How will a trespass to land be made out?

Answer 9

Claimant must have possession of the land
and the interference with such must be direct, this can include merely walking on the land or interfering with anything attached to it
* Bernstein v Skyviews: Right does not entitle to all the airspace above land, only that necessary for ordinary use and enjoyment
* League Against Cruel Sports v Scott: An intention to trespass can be inferred by indifference to such incursions