100% tevredenheidsgarantie Direct beschikbaar na je betaling Lees online óf als PDF Geen vaste maandelijkse kosten
logo-home
Summary Tort Law $5.32
In winkelwagen

Samenvatting

Summary Tort Law

4 beoordelingen
 20 keer verkocht
  • Vak
  • Instelling

Summary of 81 pages for the course Tort Law at University of Law (London)

Voorbeeld 2 van de 81  pagina's

  • 21 mei 2015
  • 81
  • 2014/2015
  • Samenvatting

4  beoordelingen

review-writer-avatar

Door: Tomisow • 5 jaar geleden

review-writer-avatar

Door: badialh419 • 7 jaar geleden

review-writer-avatar

Door: nadiakhalifa • 7 jaar geleden

review-writer-avatar

Door: Irsa92 • 8 jaar geleden

avatar-seller
UNIT 1: TRESPASS TO THE PERSON

7. THE TORT OF TRESPASS TO THE PERSON

7.1 Introduction

Incorporates three separate torts: assault, battery and false imprisonment (not covered).

7.2 Common Issues

Both assault require intentional conduct - Letang v Cooper [1964]. Trespass to the person is
also ‘actionable per se’, the claimant need not prove any actual harm in order to sue.

7.3 Definition of Assault and Battery

Battery is the intentional direct application of unlawful force to another person. Assault is an
intentional act by the defendant that causes another person to reasonably apprehend the
immediate infliction of a battery upon him.

7.4 Requirements of Battery

● Unlawful force: there is a ‘general exception embracing all physical contact which
is generally acceptable in the conduct of everyday’ - F v West Berkshire Health Authority
[1989].
● Intentional conduct: D need not intend the consequences of his actions. It is
enough that the actions themselves are intentional - Wilson v Pringle [1986].
● Direct application of force: ‘Direct’ means the force must flow almost immediately
and without intervention from the defendant’s actions. It is not necessary that D make
physical contact with C’s body, provided that the medium used is controlled by D.

7.5 Requirements of Assault

● Intentional conduct by D
● Reasonable apprehension by C…
● of an immediate infliction of battery.

It is not necessary for D to intend the C apprehends the infliction of battery.

Assault by words alone

Historically, it was thought that words alone could not amount to an assault - Read v Coker
[1853].

But, in R v Ireland [1998] it was held that they can.

, 7.6 Other Intentionally Caused Harm

Situations where C has acted intentionally but neither assault or battery seem to fit the facts.

If the harm that C has suffered falls outside the recognised existing law then C’s claim will fail
unless he convinces the court to change the existing law, eg. Wilkinson v Downton [1897],
where D’s intentions were liable; this only works if c has suffered some tangible damage as a
result.

The scope of the rule in Wilkinson v Downton was considered by the Lords in Wainwright v
Home Office [2004], which ruled that Wilkinson v Downton did not apply unless the claimants
had suffered a medically recognised condition (rather than stress or upset).

Victims may also use the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against people who carry out a
course of conduct that amounts to harassment.

7.7 Causation and Remoteness

Although trespass to the person is actionable per se, if C has suffered tangible harm (eg. an
injury) and wishes to recover fully from D, C must prove D’s tort ‘caused’ his loss and that the
loss is not ‘too remote’.

7.8 Defences

Once C has proved that D has committed a trespass to the person, it is for D to justify the action
by making out one of the available defences.

7.8.1 Consent

If C has expressly or impliedly consented to D’s actions, D will not be liable in trespass to the
person.

Chatterton v Gerson [1981] - Consent must be ‘real’, eg. a patient’s consent to medical
treatment will be ‘real’ once the patient has been informed in broad terms of the nature of the
procedure which is intended.

In the case of sport, a competitor consents to all conduct within the rules of the sport, as well as
conduct which may fall outside of the rules, but is nonetheless within its nature - Condon v Basi
[1985].

Chester v Afshar [2004] – a doctor’s failure to disclose risks will not invalidate the patient’s
consent.

Consent is not real if induced by misrepresentation.

Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews

Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!

In een paar klikken geregeld

In een paar klikken geregeld

Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of je Stuvia-tegoed en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.

Direct to-the-point

Direct to-the-point

Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!

Veelgestelde vragen

Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?

Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.

Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?

Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.

Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?

Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper gdlnotes. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.

Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?

Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor $5.32. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.

Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?

4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 65646 samenvattingen verkocht

Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen

Begin nu gratis

Laatst bekeken door jou


$5.32  20x  verkocht
  • (4)
In winkelwagen
Toegevoegd