Detailed notes relating to the trespass torts (battery, assault and false imprisonment).
Contains key principles and detailed explanation of key cases.
These notes helped me achieve a distinction (74).
THE LAW OF TORT
TRESSPASS TO THE PERSON (NOT NEGLIGENCE)
Trespass to the Person is one of the oldest torts. It comes from the writ of
trespass.
It comprises of BATTERY, ASSAULT, FALSE IMPRISONMENT and the rule
in WILKINSON V DOWNTON.
Trespass makes up few of the modern tort cases – majority are negligence. It is
not as heavily influenced by external factors.
Trespass is ‘actionable per se’, meaning you do not need to prove a loss. This
contrasts with the tort of negligence which requires a loss. Also, trespass must
be intentional, whereas negligence is unintentional.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRESPASS AND CRIMINAL LAW
A person can be unsuccessful in one court and successful in another.
CRIMINAL LAW TORT LAW
Aim is to punish/deter Aim is to compensate/appease/for
justice
Have juries Decision is made by judges
Standard of proof = beyond Standard of proof = balance of
reasonable doubt probabilities
Different offences depending on Type of harm is irrelevant
degree of harm
IN TORT, YOU MUST GO THROUGH EVERY ELEMENT AND CONSIDER THE
DEFENCES.
Page 1 of 11
, BATTERY
The intentional application of unlawful force to another person.
Elements of battery
You must prove that there was an intentional act which involved a direct
application of force with an element of hostility and that the application of
force was unlawful.
All elements are necessary conditions and must be met for a successful claim.
1) Intentional Act
Must be an act, not an omission (can’t be passive).
INNES V WYLIE
FACTS: D (a policeman) was blocking entry into a doorway – C tried to push
past but bounced off and suffered personal injury as a result.
HELD: D was passive so there was no act committed - no assault.
Act must be intentional, not careless/accidental negligence will not
suffice.
LETANG V COOPER = Case for intention
FACTS: C was sunbathing in a car park before D drove over C’s legs.
HELD: CoA decision - the act was not intentional.
This case made a clear distinction between trespass and negligence by
requiring intent in trespass [Lord Denning MR].
Subjective recklessness MAY suffice – not sure on this.
IQBAL V PRISON OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Smith LJ: if D could foresee the consequences of their actions and continues
with the action, this will suffice as intention – subjective recklessness.
Intention for the contact, not the harm/consequences.
WILLIAMS V HUMPHREY
FACTS: D pushed C into swimming pool, causing him to fall and break his ankle.
D claimed he did not intend to harm C.
HELD: It did not matter that D didn’t intend to harm C – intention is for the
contact, not the harm and he intended to touch the claimant.
Page 2 of 11
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller GDL1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £3.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
