Tresspass to the Person - Battery Flashcards
What is battery?
Winfield & Jolowicz 2010
‘D voluntarily does a positive act, intending (or being subjectively reckless as whether) force is applied directly and unlawfully on another person’
D’s intentional (or subjectively reckless) act which applied direct unlawful force to C
Burden and Standard of Proof
C. has to prove, on the balance of probabilities, all of the elements of the tort –> [If C. cannot establish all of the elements, the claim fails]
D. has to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the elements of any defence, to justify their conduct –> [If D. can do so, the claim fails]
Common features of battery include:
Voluntary act: The defendant must act voluntarily
Mental element: D must:
- intend to do the act (which causes direct force to be applied); or
- be subjectively reckless as to whether the act happens (which causes Lacan direct force to be applied)
Positive act: The defendant must either act positively (or be under an independent duty to act, but then failed to act)
Features of battery - Voluntary Act
If D. did not act voluntarily, there can be no trespass to the person
Examples of involuntary conduct:
- Muscle spasms from a medical condition
- Being pushed into someone else
- Duress
Features of Battery - Positive Act
C. must prove that D. either:
> acted positively (cf. a ‘pure’ omission); or
> failed to act BUT was under an independent duty to act positively
Innes v Wylie (1844) –> policeman stood outside hall while everyone else was trapped inside –> policeman’s failure to move wasn’t a positive act of keeping every imprisoned but rather just a failure to move
Iqbal v Prison Offers’ Association [2010] CA)
> Iqbal was a prisoner
> Prison officers were upset with pay but are not allowed to strike however they decided to not go to work
> So all prisoners were stuck inside their cells as there were no officers to let them out for exercise/work etc.
> CA said it was an omission and a failure to let the prisoners out
Features of Battery - D’s Mental State
C. must prove that D. either:
> Intended to do the act prohibited by the tort; OR
> Was subjectively reckless as to whether his conduct caused the act prohibited by the tort (i.e. actually foresaw the consequences of his conduct but continued with the conduct anyway)
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association (2010) CA)
> subjective recklessness element was met in Iqbal because it was foreseeable for the prisoners to be kept in their cells while the officers went on strike
Intention and Consequences
Letang v Cooper 1965
D doesn’t need to intend any particular consequence of the act e.g. injury
Intention in battery can be transferred
Scott v Shepherd 1773
Where D.:
> intends to apply unlawful force directly to X.; but misses and hits C.;
> D.’s intent to apply unlawful force directly is ‘transferred’ from X to C.; so that
> D. is regarded as having the mental element for a battery against C.
Motive is probably irrelevant
R. v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall, ex parte Central Electricity Generating Board (1982) –> ‘an unwanted kiss may be a battery although the defendants intention may be most amicable…’
Williams v Humphreys 1975 –> boy bushes man into the pool as a joke, man injures his knee so man sues boy –> boy acted intentionally and did apply force directly but his reasoning does not matter
Force
The application of the slightest amount of physical contact is sufficient for a battery
Cole v Turner –> ‘the least touching is a battery
F v West Berkshire –> any touching of another persons body is…capable of amounting to a battery’
Examples include:
> Spitting: R v Cotesworth
Actionable per se
Slater v Swann –> C. does not need to prove any measurable harm (e.g. physical injury) by D.’s conduct
The harm is simply the interference with C.’s rights.
BUT the more interference that C. can prove (e.g. the seriousness of injury, the period and circumstances of detention) the higher the award of any damages
D’s act must be sufficiently direct
Traditional strict distinction –> log example
throwing a log (direct) cf.
tripping over a log (indirect)
Relaxed approach to directness
Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire
> Women is holding a baby, man hits women and drops baby who hits the floor
> Evident to see man has committed a battery against baby
Intervening acts may break the directness
Hicks v Young –> claimant jumps out of a moving taxi, taxi driver is not liable because C’s act was an intervening act which broke the chain of causation
