Intentional Torts PDF

Preview

Summary

Intentional torts summary...

Description

Cole v Turner (p. 22) “The least touching of another in anger is a battery” This case is authority that for a battery there must be either an intention to harm, or overt hostility.  If people meet, and without any violence/design of harm, one touches the other gently, it is not battery Wilson v Pringle (p. 22) It is the act and not the injury which must be intentional (need not intend consequences) Hostility was a necessary element of an actionable battery. FACTS  13 year old boys: D pulled a sports bag off P’s shoulder, who thus fell and injured his hip Authorities  Tuberville v Savage (1669) (p. 37) o The court ruled that there was no threat, and accordingly no assault JUDGES REASONING (CROOM-JOHNSON LJ)  For there to be either an assault or a battery there must be something in the nature of hostility  There are many examples in everyday life where an intended contact is not actionable as trespass o E.g. shaking hands where consent is actual or to be implied, or o E.g. batsman pat on back. No one seeks his permission Collins v Wilcock (p. 31) Has the physical contact so persisted gone beyond generally accepted standards of conduct? Facts  A police woman took hold of a woman's arm to stop her walking off when she was questioning her  She scratched the officer, and was arrested for assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty Held  The police woman's actions amounted to a battery.  D’s action was therefore in self-defence Judge's Reasoning (Goff LJ)  Generally speaking consent is a defence to battery; and most physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly consented to by all who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact. o In Coward v Baddeley a distinction was drawn between a touch to draw a man's attention, which is generally acceptable, and a physical restraint, which is not  Persistent touching to gain attention in the face of obvious disregard may transcend the norms of acceptable behaviour, as so be outside the exception.  Rawlings v Till: If a police officers physical contact in the face of non-cooperation persists beyond generally acceptable standards of conduct, his action will become unlawful F v West Berkshire Health Authority (p. 74) Physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life will not be unlawful Facts  Mother sought a court declaration that it would be lawful to sterilize her daughter; for she was a 36year-old woman with the mental age of a minor, who could not consent herself  The object of the sterilisation was to help her. No hostility Held  the operation was lawful as it was in the best interests of the daughter. Judge's Reasoning (Lord Goff of Chieveley)  At common law a doctor cannot give adult patients any treatment involving the application of force, however small, without their consent, but it is an essential element of the tort of battery that the application of force is without lawful excuse.  House of Lords raises a doubt as to whether or not hostility is a requirement. Use of defence of necessity to treat adults medically w/o consent: - an emergency situation where patient is unconscious - a state of affairs rendering the patient incapable of giving consent

Katko v Briney (p. 69)  Shotgun to warn off trespassers  Left, some years passed, gun went off, someone sued him for battery Held: - No. you did the action that caused the battery - Fact that time passed, that you didn’t intend it to be to this particular person, doesn’t matter.  Particularly about the defence of protection of property Forde and Skinner v Others (p. 23)  Parish officers cut off woman's hair without consent, using force, to "bring her pride down"  We can look at this based on the more noble motive: that this was based on health and safety.  But this was still battery. Law:  Was done violently with force and maliciousness.  Decide on the motives of the D's and according to that estimate the amount of damages. Moir v Police (p. 23)  Appellant spat at a Constable which hit his uniform. This was held to be battery Law:  Doesn't matter that not physically injured.  Includes ejecting of small objects eg. food. Degree of force not necessary  The physical act of spitting was clearly intentional and malevolent Bettel v Yim (p. 36) Egg shell skull rule: If physical contact was intended, the fact that its magnitude exceeded all reasonable or intended expectations should make no difference. Facts:  Yim shook Bettle unintentionally causing broken nose, extra complications, lots of medical consequences  Going way beyond what you might imagine would happen from shaking somebody, but Yim liable. Law:  Just need to intend the touching not the injury.  Must bear responsibility for unintended result. Foreseeability:  Reasonable foreseeability is abandoned in this case Letang v Cooper (p. 24) There must be an intention to touch/make contact, otherwise there is no claim in trespass to the person. Facts:  P was sunbathing, D did not see her and ran over her legs Rule:  Negligently caused personal injury cannot be recovered under the trespass to the person  if the defendants actions are careless and not intentional then the claimant should sue for negligence Richardson v Rix (p. 38) Don't need to be afraid, causing the apprehension of violence is enough. But if no apprehension then no assault. Taking keys without contact not assault. FACTS  Car crash between R&R.  D followed P to their car, and grabbed his keys to stop him from leaving. A fight ensued HELD  Taking keys without contact not assault. R v Kerr (axe sunbathing case) (p. 44) There can be no assault when the person does not know they are being threatened

FALSE IMPRISONMENT Bird v Jones (p. 45)  Total restraint: must be more than awkward for a person to evade their restraint FACTS:  Bird, wished to cross a section of a public road which was closed off due to a boat race.  Two policemen prevented B from passing in the direction he wished to go, but was allowed to go in the only other diction in which he could pass.  B refused to go in that direction and stood in the same place.  B raised an action against D for false imprisonment. HELD  Partial obstruction and disturbance does not constitute imprisonment. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL HARM TORT Wilkinson v Downton 

   Held 

Downton made a joke to Mrs Wilkinson that her husband, Thomas Wilkinson had had an accident in which both his legs were broken and that W should go to The Elms pub where Thomas was lying to bring him home. These statements were false but Downtown intended them to be believed as true by Wilkinson, who suffered a shock to her nervous system as a result. Wilkinson had no predisposition to nervous shock and the shock which caused her weeks of suffering and incapacity was not a result of previous ill-health. Wilkinson raised an action against Downtown for compensation for her illness and suffering due to the false representation made by Downtown.

Downtown had wilfully made a false representation to W intending to cause some physical harm to Wilkinson, by infringing her right to personal safety, with no justification for doing so.  Although Downtown did not intend the harm which was caused, this ‘wilful injuria’ is malicious in law.  The injury caused to Wilkinson was not too remote and could have been foreseen, and therefore taken to have been intended, by Downtown. wilfully commit an act calculated to cause physical harm...