Wilson v Pringle PDF

Preview

Summary

Zusammenfassung des Falls Wilson v Pringle, Referatsthema...

Description

Wilson v Pringle I. Facts What “happened” in this case?       

4th December 1980 Peter Wilson against Ian Pringle, both 13 years old Defendant (Pringle) jumped intentionally on plaintiff (Wilson), causing him to fall and injure his left hip They had a maths class together before the incident and the plaintiff was walking down the hallway The defendant pulled at the bag hanging over Wilson’s shoulder as a prank, which caused the fall Wilson sued Pringle for “trespass on the person”, which is the tort equivalent to battery Pringle was found guilty because the judge didn’t see any defences to Pringle’s actions but Pringle appealed

What was novel or problematic about these facts that required the court to take up this case?      

Trespass on the person was a very old tort and problematic to define Distinguishing touching from battery: What is classified as contact and does the touching need to be done in anger/hostility ‘generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of human life Distinction between trespass to the person and negligence On who is the onus of proof? Should “rough horseplay”/or joking really be considered trespass to the person? Case lead to a narrowed definition of the tort and introduced the element of “hostility”

II. Law What was the legal position before this case was decided, and why was it inadequate for resolving this case? Ingredients of trespass to the person: -there are three different forms of this tort: a) Battery b) assault c) false imprisonment  until the 17th century there was a trespass if one of the criminal offences was committed - in earlier cases the outcome often depended on which issues were brought into the hearing by the parties, the mentioned circumstances were often not seen as defences but it was seen that the undefined tort lead to problematic judgements - Many claims that were brought in trespass to the person would be brought in negligence today (eg. Weaver v Ward), back then someone who just acted negligently was sued in trespass to the person - in following cases it was stated that there has to be deliberate touching for Battery or deliberate threat for Assault which means an intend to harm, as well as hostility (Tuberville v Savage), even back than it was seen that there are excuses in case of unavoidable contacts, where even if the touching was done deliberately it was considered innocent - the question whether the claim has to be brought in trespass or in negligence changed the tort and the development of limitation, only deliberate accidents can be subject to trespass to the person (Stanley v Powell)

- In addition to that it was developed by the courts that the difference between trespass and negligence is always the defendant´s state of mind, did he act intentionally or unintentionally (Letang v Cooper)

Leading judgment: What does the court rule? Explain the decision and the court’s reasoning for it Trespass against the person battery or assault required Requirements battery Physical touching  intentional and hostile, hostility must be proved. Hostility = question of fact, not a question of law

Possible defences: 1. Consent touching in everydays situation is impliedly consented by moving in society and exposing himself to risk of bodily contact 2. irresponsibility & degree of care and awareness of children

What cases does the court cite favourably? How are they analogous to the present case? 









Tuberville v Savage Facts: Savage offended Tuberville; therefore Tuberville clapped his hand upon his sword and said, "If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language."  no threat, and accordingly no assault Ruling: hostile behaviour needed, not only intention, and hostility depends on circumstances, obiously hostility may sufficient but sometimes is not avoidable Cole v Turner Facts: Case concernd an action brought in assault and battery Ruling: for battery anger needed intention to harm or overt hostility, must not hostile intent, can shown in other ways R v Sutton Facts: 2 boys asked to acted for photograph; only touching was to get them into a specific pose; not hostile Ruling: no assault Williams v Jones For battery degree of force and intention of defendant relevant, an overuse of force in joke or in friendship is no battery  in Wilson v Pringle: horseplay Collins v Wilcock Facts: Woman was followed by police officier trying to question her, woman scratched officiers arm, as she tries to restrain her. Women convicted for assaulting a police officer in charge of her duty appeal allowed





Ruling: Restrictions needed to general principle of protction against any form of physical molestation General exception for physical contact which is generally acceptable standard of conduct Fowler v Lanning Facts: Statement of claim: „the defendant shot the plaintiff“  disclosed no cause of action Ruling: Burden of proof of intention or negligence is on plaintiff Letang v Cooper (1965) 1 QB 232 :where the plaintiff was sunbathing in the car park of a country hotel, with the result that her legs were run over by the defendant's motor car. She sued him for both negligence and trespass to the person more than three years afterwards. She proved negligence but could not recover because her action was barred by the Limitation Act 1939. But she contended that she could recover in trespass to the person which, she said, was not caught by the three year period. The Court of Appeal held that it was so caught. The court also held that her action lay only in negligence and not in trespass to the person.

What cases does the court cite unfavourably? How do they differ from the present case? (Tale) 



Weaver v Ward (1617) Hobart 135(80 ER 284.) The plaintiff and defendant were exercising in the trained band with live ammunition. The defendant shot the plaintiff. TheThe plaintiff sued the defendant in trespass. The defendant confessed and avoided. He pleaded that he had not shot the plaintiff intentionally. That plea was held to be demurrable. The defendant could not he excused of trespass "except it he judged utterly without his fault". In other words the defendant would he liable in trespass if he acted negligently, even though he had no intention to shoot the plaintiff. Nowadays an action such as that could only be brought in trespass on the case, in negligence. Williams v Humphrey (1975): There the defendant, a boy just under 16, pushed the plaintiff into a swimming pool and caused him physical injury. The judge found the defendant acted negligently and awarded damages. But there was another claim in trespass. Talbot J. rejected the submission that the action would not lie unless there was an intent to injure. He held that it was sufficient, if the act was intentional, that there was no justification for it. In the present Order 14 proceedings the judge relied upon that decision. Facts: 15 year old boy pushed plaintiff into a swimming pool, caused physical injury Ruling: Sufficient if act was intentional no intention for consequences needed Wilson v Pringle: act not injury must intentional.

Dissenting judgments: How would the dissenting judges have resolved this case? What reasons do they give? Judge: battery because no consent of the plaintiff, no defence for defendant why he pulled the bag and brought the plaintiff to the ground What differences do the dissenting judges see in previous case law that point toward a different outcome than the one that ultimately won out?

III. Systematic implications How has this decision affected the legal system? Criticism to the judgment by authorities:

First authority: Approach criticised: The touching must be proved to be a hostile touching in order to constitute a battery. It would represent a serious and novel restriction on the protection afforded by the tort of battery, because battery was never limited to overtly hostile contacts before (except to for example: Cole v Turner). The Problem is: What is hostile behaviour? The definition of hostility made it harder for claimants to prove liability because it was too narrowed. It’s not easy to clearly define it. It cannot be equated with ill-will or malevolence, it cannot be shown in obviously intentional acts (Stubbing etc.) or in expressed intention, although that may be strong evidence . In addition to that, he criticises that the court extended the exception for trivial social contact to the practical joker, which the horseplay was in this case. There can be a question of fact aroused whether the horseplay was acceptable or not. He is of the opinion that an individual’s claim to protection from such molestation should not be depend upon whether the other’s regard the action as ‚unacceptable‘. Citations in further courts: 4 years after the case was decided: F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1989] Lord Goff: criticised whether a hostile touch is needed for the purpose of battery. He mentions examples: A prank which gets out of hands, an over friendly slap on the back, or a surgeon who has thought that his patient would have consented to a surgical treatment. All these situations transcend the bound of lawfulness without having a hostile behaviour. Facit: The qualification of hostility as a requirement for trespass to the person/battery is difficult to reconcile with the principle that any touching of another person’s body is, except to a lawful excuse, capable to amount to a battery or trespass to the person In R v Brown [1994] the House of Lords adopted the requirement of hostility in this case, but defined the hostile act as an unlawful interference: It means that if the interference was done intentionally and against the wishes of the recipient, then it will be a hostile act.

Would you say, all things considered, that the court successfully addressed the problem put in front of it? On the one would say that the requirement of hostility is difficult to define and to prove on the side of the plaintiff. The element of hostility is more a mental element which is difficult to prove in the behaviour of the defendant. But on the other side it is also important to distinguish the touching which belongs to the risk f dailylive and touching which is not acceptable. It is difficult to define the bound between these situations. In this case, the play between school boys is an issue, which might happen every day in school life. On basis of the fact, that the schoolboys were only 13 years old, we can say, that a play between schoolboys cannot be a hostile behaviour on the side of the defendant, because he was just joking. It would be a different situation, if an adult would act this way, because he is more able to see the consequences of his behaviour than a 13 year old child....