Tort Law Revision Notes(for DISTINCTION)
Intentional Torts
Assault Battery False Imprisonment
“If the act is intentional, it is the tort of assault and battery. If negligent and causing damage, it is the tort of
negligence…” Lord Denning in Letang v Cooper
unlawful threat of imminent battery unlawful contact to the body unlawful restraint to liberty
ingredients: ingredients: ingredients:
conduct e.g. point a loaded gun, to shake touching any contact will suffice, no complete restraint e.g. not valid if
a fist, to curse in a threatening manner matter how trivial – Cole v Turner claimant can leave (even if not his
- Reed v Cocker; a mere omission will not intention to commit the act but preferred route) – Bird v Jones or if
suffice intention to injure not necessary – able to escape: Wright v Wilson
apprehension of an immediate battery Wilson v Pringle must be intentional but malice not
no good if not possible, e.g. Thomas v intention can be transferred, e.g. if A necessary - R v Governor of
National Union of Mineworkers intends to strike B, but misses and Brockhill Prison (No 2)
(picketing miners held back by police) inadvertently strikes C, he is liable in
sharedresource
via
apprehension must be physical contact battery to C – James v Campbell
This study
(e.g. not photographing someone against
their will – Murray v Minister of
Defence
CourseHero.com
Brandish an unloaded pistol? Hostility required? * Need not be imprisonment,
was
Not assault because defendant could * Wilson v Pringle – “The touching must confinement can be anywhere e.g. in a
not have intended battery be proved to be a hostile touching” vehicle: Burton v Davies
* “There must be the means of * However, R v Chief Constable of * Barriers need not be physical, e.g.
carrying the threat into effect” Tindal Devon – an unwanted kiss may be a using authority to make somebody stay:
CJ in Stephens v Myers battery (not hostile) Harnett v Bond
* but later (criminal) case of R v St * And medical treatment without * Actual knowledge by the claimant of
George – the gist of the tort is to consent is not per se a hostile act – St detention is not necessary – proof of
cause a reasonable person to Georges Healthcare Trust v S total restraint is enough: Murray v
apprehend battery (reasonable person * And Lord Goff in F v West Berkshire Ministry of Defence (although only
would not know that the gun is Health Authority disapproved of the nominal damages)
unloaded) – objective test hostility requirement: “difficult to * “for however short a time” - Bird v
reconcile with the principle that any Jones
Words touching of another’s body” amounts to
* mere words can constitute assault battery Claimant must prove, on the balance of
since R v Ireland probabilities, that the act actually
* words can negate an assault if they Absence of consent? occurred. It is then the defendant’s
‘explain away’, e.g. “if it were not assize Freeman v Home Office (No 2): * onus prerogative to prove that what he did
me, I would not take such language of proving absence of consent on was with lawful authority (e.g. a
from you” Turberville v Savage (1669) claimant warrant – R v Governor of Brockhill
* a conditional threat, e.g. “if you do * Note: claimant need only raise Prison)
not leave…” will constitute assault sufficient evidence to cast doubt on
where defendant has not authority to the purported consent - consent can
ask claimant to leave – Read v Cocker still be attempted as a defence
The rule in Wilkinson v Downton
where an intentional act (intended to cause distress) causes unintentional consequences, liability may be found.
Approved in Janvier v Sweeny (pretended to be military authorities with intention of fright; plaintiff suffered severe shock
and lost her job)
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES: EXEMPLARY DAMAGES:
E.g. for personal injury, damage to Higher amount to punish the defendant and to defer others from
similar property, loss of earnings, expenses behaviour
etc Rooks v Barnard – can only be claimed when perpetrator is organ of the state (e.g.
policeman) OR where perpetrator does act to make profit (e.g. landlord removing
tenant) OR if a statute particularly allows such damages to be claimed.
Barnes v Nayer – none of these applied so no exemplary damages.
, Tort Law Revision Notes(for DISTINCTION)
DEFENCES:
Volenti
Consent + assumption of risk
General: e.g. in sport – Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club – so long as in the rules of the game
Medical: without consent is prima facie a battery – F v West Berkshire Health Authority but
consent can be implied from conduct e.g. holding out arm for injection
Authorised by law
General: s.3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 – can use reasonable force to prevent a crime
Police officers: PACE 1984 give statutory authority; force used must be proportionate – Collins
v Wilcock (police officer holding woman by elbow was unlawful)
Necessity
The intention of protecting someone against harm with the result that an innocent person
suffers e.g. Proudman v Allan – believing that C’s unoccupied car was about to run into another
vehicle, jumped into passenger seat and made car run into sea
Provocation
Only available to for exemplary damages
Must be proportionate - e.g. a beating so bad as to require 18 stitches for facial injuries was not
held to be a proportionate response to drunken remarks and an ineffectual shove – Lane v
Holloway
Self Defence
Overlaps with the CLA right to use reasonable force (above)
Force used must be reasonable – Cockroft v Smith (biting off a finger NOT reasonable)
OK if defendant mistakenly believes he is under attack - Beckford v R; or others are under
attack – R v Duffy
Occupiers’ Liability
Intentional Torts
Assault Battery False Imprisonment
“If the act is intentional, it is the tort of assault and battery. If negligent and causing damage, it is the tort of
negligence…” Lord Denning in Letang v Cooper
unlawful threat of imminent battery unlawful contact to the body unlawful restraint to liberty
ingredients: ingredients: ingredients:
conduct e.g. point a loaded gun, to shake touching any contact will suffice, no complete restraint e.g. not valid if
a fist, to curse in a threatening manner matter how trivial – Cole v Turner claimant can leave (even if not his
- Reed v Cocker; a mere omission will not intention to commit the act but preferred route) – Bird v Jones or if
suffice intention to injure not necessary – able to escape: Wright v Wilson
apprehension of an immediate battery Wilson v Pringle must be intentional but malice not
no good if not possible, e.g. Thomas v intention can be transferred, e.g. if A necessary - R v Governor of
National Union of Mineworkers intends to strike B, but misses and Brockhill Prison (No 2)
(picketing miners held back by police) inadvertently strikes C, he is liable in
sharedresource
via
apprehension must be physical contact battery to C – James v Campbell
This study
(e.g. not photographing someone against
their will – Murray v Minister of
Defence
CourseHero.com
Brandish an unloaded pistol? Hostility required? * Need not be imprisonment,
was
Not assault because defendant could * Wilson v Pringle – “The touching must confinement can be anywhere e.g. in a
not have intended battery be proved to be a hostile touching” vehicle: Burton v Davies
* “There must be the means of * However, R v Chief Constable of * Barriers need not be physical, e.g.
carrying the threat into effect” Tindal Devon – an unwanted kiss may be a using authority to make somebody stay:
CJ in Stephens v Myers battery (not hostile) Harnett v Bond
* but later (criminal) case of R v St * And medical treatment without * Actual knowledge by the claimant of
George – the gist of the tort is to consent is not per se a hostile act – St detention is not necessary – proof of
cause a reasonable person to Georges Healthcare Trust v S total restraint is enough: Murray v
apprehend battery (reasonable person * And Lord Goff in F v West Berkshire Ministry of Defence (although only
would not know that the gun is Health Authority disapproved of the nominal damages)
unloaded) – objective test hostility requirement: “difficult to * “for however short a time” - Bird v
reconcile with the principle that any Jones
Words touching of another’s body” amounts to
* mere words can constitute assault battery Claimant must prove, on the balance of
since R v Ireland probabilities, that the act actually
* words can negate an assault if they Absence of consent? occurred. It is then the defendant’s
‘explain away’, e.g. “if it were not assize Freeman v Home Office (No 2): * onus prerogative to prove that what he did
me, I would not take such language of proving absence of consent on was with lawful authority (e.g. a
from you” Turberville v Savage (1669) claimant warrant – R v Governor of Brockhill
* a conditional threat, e.g. “if you do * Note: claimant need only raise Prison)
not leave…” will constitute assault sufficient evidence to cast doubt on
where defendant has not authority to the purported consent - consent can
ask claimant to leave – Read v Cocker still be attempted as a defence
The rule in Wilkinson v Downton
where an intentional act (intended to cause distress) causes unintentional consequences, liability may be found.
Approved in Janvier v Sweeny (pretended to be military authorities with intention of fright; plaintiff suffered severe shock
and lost her job)
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES: EXEMPLARY DAMAGES:
E.g. for personal injury, damage to Higher amount to punish the defendant and to defer others from
similar property, loss of earnings, expenses behaviour
etc Rooks v Barnard – can only be claimed when perpetrator is organ of the state (e.g.
policeman) OR where perpetrator does act to make profit (e.g. landlord removing
tenant) OR if a statute particularly allows such damages to be claimed.
Barnes v Nayer – none of these applied so no exemplary damages.
, Tort Law Revision Notes(for DISTINCTION)
DEFENCES:
Volenti
Consent + assumption of risk
General: e.g. in sport – Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club – so long as in the rules of the game
Medical: without consent is prima facie a battery – F v West Berkshire Health Authority but
consent can be implied from conduct e.g. holding out arm for injection
Authorised by law
General: s.3(1) Criminal Law Act 1967 – can use reasonable force to prevent a crime
Police officers: PACE 1984 give statutory authority; force used must be proportionate – Collins
v Wilcock (police officer holding woman by elbow was unlawful)
Necessity
The intention of protecting someone against harm with the result that an innocent person
suffers e.g. Proudman v Allan – believing that C’s unoccupied car was about to run into another
vehicle, jumped into passenger seat and made car run into sea
Provocation
Only available to for exemplary damages
Must be proportionate - e.g. a beating so bad as to require 18 stitches for facial injuries was not
held to be a proportionate response to drunken remarks and an ineffectual shove – Lane v
Holloway
Self Defence
Overlaps with the CLA right to use reasonable force (above)
Force used must be reasonable – Cockroft v Smith (biting off a finger NOT reasonable)
OK if defendant mistakenly believes he is under attack - Beckford v R; or others are under
attack – R v Duffy
Occupiers’ Liability
