L 02/10/23 Intro
02 October 2023 20:28
The law of tort protects fundamental interests e.g protection of our personal integrity or freedom from personal injury. It concerns those situations
where one person’s conduct causes or threatens to cause harm to the interest of others. Interests may be defined as kinds of claims, wants or desires
that people seek to satisfy in life, which a civilised society ought to recognise. Not every human desire can qualify as a legally protected interest. Society
must determine which of the many human interests are so fundamental that the law should recognise those interests and compensate those whose
interests are violated by others.’ Brazier, M., and Murphy J., Street on Torts 1999, 4
‘….liability arises from breach of a duty primarily fixed by law: such duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action of
unliquidated damages’ Winfield, Province of the Law of Tort (1931)
e.g. Negligence
• Sets out obligations imposed on one member of society to others
• Provide compensation for harm caused due to the breach of these obligations
Damages
‘[In tort the measure of damages is] that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, inthe same position as he
would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation…’
(per Lord Blackburn, Livingstone v Raywards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25)
Damages not the only remedy e.g. injunctions
Collett v Smith and Middlesbrough Football and Athletics Company [2009] EWCA Civ 583
• Facts- claim of negligence was brought against football player for personal injury.
• Appeal – against assessment of damages by High Court
• Damages: £4,577,323 (in 2008)
• Appeal dismissed
• Trial judge had not erroneously assessed loss of future earnings
Tresspass to the person Page 1
, L 04/10/23 Battery
03 October 2023 15:30
Tresspass to the person 1
Introductory points
○ Protection of interests in the person
○ Protection of Bodily Integrity, Freedom of Movement etc
○ Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment also crimes
○ Role of Intention
○ Identify Boundaries of Liability developed in Case Law
Assault and Battery
Assault- An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person
Battery-a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another person
Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172, 1177:
‘An assault is an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person: e.g.Threat of punch: a battery is the actual infliction of unlawful force on another
person.’e.g. when the punch has bodily contact
► Battery
Intentional and direct application of force to another person
Application of force
- force: Pursell v Horn (1838) 8 A & E 602; defendant threw boiling water at claimant causing injuries.
→ Battery still would´ve been caused if water was cold
R v Cotesworth (1704) 6 Mod Rep 172 : Defendant was seen spitting on claimant.
→ Courts take a very flexible and liberal approach when it comes to determining what is a battery
- any physical contact: includes minor touching , can be considered battery as long as the touch is not consented
- does not require physical harm: no blood loss is required just bodily contact
- does not require personal contact
Direct: Scott v Shepherd (1773) 2 Bl W 892
Facts- Defendant lit a firework and through a chain reaction ended up exploding in claimants face and causing injury.
Judgment- a broken chain of consequences connected defendant and claimant.
Intention: intention is required as to contact not to harm: Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237
Analysis:
→ tort of battery has a wide definition so there is a concern unobjectionable conduct will fall into the bracket of battery
→ distinguish battery from legally unobjectionable conduct
→ courts attempted to exclude from scope of tort touching which occurs in everyday situations
► Goff LJ in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172, 1177
Facts- police officer grabbed a lady´s arm after she rejected to go with them. The lady reacted badly to the police officer and was charged with assaulting a police officer.
– Principle: every person’s body is inviolate, the touching of another, however slight may amount to a battery
Exceptions:
– reasonable punishment of children
– lawful exercise of the power of arrest
– reasonable force used in self-defence
– implied consent/‘physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life’
Generally speaking, consent is a defence to battery;
and most of the 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. .. it is more
common nowadays to treat them as falling within a
general exception embracing all physical contact
which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct
of daily life.’
► Applied in Goodenough v Chief Constable of Thames Valley [2020] EWHC 695, [36]
Facts- police officers caused claimant to fall on his face and suffer injury.
‘With respect to the tort of battery, there is, and could be, no dispute that the officers involved used physical force on Mr Goodenough which, subject to the specific defences available in such circumstances, went well
beyond that which would otherwise be generally acceptable in everyday life’.
Tresspass to the person Page 2
, L 09/10/23 Assault + false imprisonment
04 October 2023 13:06
Assault
Collins v Wilcock
→ Act by the Df in which the Df intends to cause, and does cause, the Cl to reasonably apprehend the direct and immediate application of force
→ Df intends to cause the Cl to apprehend the application of direct and immediate force
→ Cl reasonably apprehends the direct and immediate application of force
Stephen v Myers (1840) 4 C & P 349
The claimant must have reasonably expected an immediate battery. Thus in Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735, the defendant made a violent gesture at the plaintiff by waiving a clenched fist, but
was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third parties. The defendant was liable for assault.
Thomas v NUM [1986] Ch 20
Judgement-The court held that the actions of the Defendant could not constitute an assault as the crowd lacked the capacity to immediately carry out its threats. Capability to put a threat
imminently was a necessary aspect of the tort of assault.
What threats constitute assault?
• Mead’s and Belt’s case (1823) 1 Law 184, Holroyd J, ‘no words or singing are equivalent to an assault’
• R v Ireland, R v Burstow [1998] AC 147, HL held that silent telephone calls may constitute an assault
• Words accompanying a menacing gesture negative the inference, Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3
• Conditional threat, Read v Coker (1853) 13 CB 850
False imprisonment -Intentional infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly authorised by law
Complete restraint within defined bounds: Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742; Hicks v Young [2015] EWHC 1144; Austin and another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5; Prison
Officers Association v Iqbal [2010] EWCA Civ 1312
NB: Claimant need not know of restraint at time
Needs to be a positive act for an individual to be liable for false imprisonment can´t be liable through omission
Defendant intended to do an act which restrains the claimant
► Lawful imprisonment
A complete defence to false imprisonment is provided by a lawful sentence of imprisonment passed by a court, R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex p Hague [1991] 3 WLR 340.
Claims by prisoners that change in conditions of imprisonment and detention for longer than sentence amounted to false imprisonment? R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2)
[2000] 3 WLR 843
Intentional Infliction of Harm by Indirect Means-
□ Origins: Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57
□ Principle doubted by HL: Wainwright and another v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53
□ Current Law by SC: James Rhodes v OPO and another [2015] UKSC 32
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57
Facts- Downton (D) made a joke to Mrs Wilkinson (W) that her husband, Thomas Wilkinson (T) had had an accident in which both his legs were broken. W raised an action against D for
compensation for her illness and suffering due to the false representation made by D.
Wright J:
‘The defendant has...wilfully done an act calculated to cause harm to the plaintiff - that is to say, to infringe her legal right to personal safety, and has in fact thereby caused physical harm to
her. That proposition without more appears to me to state a good cause of action there being no justification alleged for the act.’
1. Intentional infliction physical harm?
→ Intention imputed: harm was the natural and probable consequence of the Df’s act
2. Harm inflicted by indirect means
3. Remedy for psychiatric harm
Approved/followed by CA in Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 KB 316
Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727, CA injunction preventing Df from ‘harassing, pestering or communicating with cl’
Tresspass to the person Page 3
