BPP Tort Law GDL Revision and
Chapter Notes
written by
seth27
The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Revision Notes & Study Guides
Buy and sell all your revision notes, study guides, essays and lecture notes, and many more...
www.stuvia.co.uk
Downloaded by: shaistaahmady89 |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Tort Revision Ch 2: Trespass to the Person
Trespass to the person is the intentional cause of injury, as opposed to the
negligent cause of injury. An employer can be vicariously liable for an employee
who commits trespass.
1) Assault
2) Battery
3) The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton
4) False Imprisonment
Actionable per se: without proof of damage and require an act, not an omission
Battery
“the direct and intentional application of force by D to C without lawful
justification”.
1) Intentional
a) Letang v Cooper: Negligence is not enough to show intentionality
b) Fowler v Lanning: C was shot by D. There would have been no trespass if
the shooting was caused unintentionally.
c) Innes v Wylle: Must be an act, not an omission.
d) Livingstone v MOD: Transferred malice still applies
2) Direct
a) Reynolds v Clarke: Includes if someone throws something on a road in
someone’s path.
b) Fagan v CMP: Did not remove car from policeman’s foot. This was an act,
not an omission.
c) Dodwell v Burford: D struck a horse that C was sitting on = direct.
d) DPP v K: boy hid acid in hand-dryer = direct.
3) Application of Force
a) Any physical contact
i) Cole v Turner: “the least touch of another in anger is a battery”
ii) R v Cotesworth : spitting
iii) Nash v Sheen: applying hair dye
4) Hostility
a) Wilson v Pringle: “it must be a question of fact”
5) Defences
a) Consent
i) Express = consent to broad nature and terms of medical procedure
(Chatterton v Gerson)
ii) Implied = getting on a tube at rush hour (Re F)
iii) R v Tabassum: patient consented to medical exam but D was not
medically qualified. Consent invalid.
iv) R v Brown: consent invalid for ABH
b) Necessity (Re A (Conjoined Twins))
i) the act is needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil
ii) no more should be done than reasonably necessary
iii) the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided
Downloaded by: shaistaahmady89 |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
c) Self-Defence
i) Defence of person and property
ii) Cockroft v Smith: bit off finger to avoid being poked in the eye
iii) Bird v Holbrook: spring gun not acceptable to protect property
iv) Lane v Holloway: what is reasonable depends on the facts
d) Statutory Authority
i) Lawful arrest and detention
e) Reasonable Chastisement
i) Consider nature, context, duration, mental and physical consequences,
age and personal characteristics of the child, reasons for punishment.
f) Contributory Negligence is N/A (Co-Op v Pritchard)
g) Inevitable Accident
Assault
“an act that produces in C a reasonable expectation of immediate, unlawful force”
– R v Beasley
1) Intentional Act
a) Can be words without gestures (R v Wilson: “get out the knives”)
b) Silence can be assault (R v Ireland)
c) Words can negate gestures (Tuberville v Savage: hand on sword + “if it
were not assize time I would not take such language”).
2) Apprehension of Immediate Battery
a) A threat to future harm may not be enough (Thomas v NUM: miners who
were striking threatened to hurt him, but he was in a protected vehicle).
b) Effect on a reasonable person, not subjective apprehension (R v St George)
c) ‘Immediate’ can be any time in the near future (R v Ireland: silent phone
calls).
3) Defences – Same as Battery
The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton
Essentially practical jokes that cause harm.
In Wilkinson v Downton D told C that her husband had been badly injured in an
accident. C suffered nervous shock and D was held liable.
1) Deliberate acts or words
2) Calculated to cause harm to the claimant
3) Unlawfully
False Imprisonment
“an act of D that directly and intentionally causes the complete restriction of C’s
liberty without lawful justification”
1) Intentional Act
a) Accidently locking someone in is not false imprisonment (Sayer v Harlow)
Downloaded by: shaistaahmady89 |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
2) Imprisonment
a) C’s liberty must be restricted in all directions (Bird v Jones: was not
allowed to walk across a bridge = not false imprisonment)
b) They are only expected to take reasonable means to gain their freedom
c) C does not need to be aware that he is being imprisoned (Meering v
Grahame-White Aviation: employee was locked in office b/c suspected of
theft. Asked to wait there).
d) No need for actual force (Davidson v CCNW: “stay here or I’ll kill you”)
3) False
a) Without lawful justification
i) Lawful includes contractual obligations (Robinson v Balmain New
Ferry: refused to pay a penny to get through a turnstile; Herd v
Weardale Steel: miner refused to continue his shift and demanded to
be brought to surface = no false imprisonment).
b) Wrongful continuation of lawful imprisonment can be false imprisonment
(Toumia v Evans: locked in cell for longer than usual b/c of prison officers’
dispute).
4) Defences – Same as Battery
Downloaded by: shaistaahmady89 |
Distribution of this document is illegal
Chapter Notes
written by
seth27
The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Revision Notes & Study Guides
Buy and sell all your revision notes, study guides, essays and lecture notes, and many more...
www.stuvia.co.uk
Downloaded by: shaistaahmady89 |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
Tort Revision Ch 2: Trespass to the Person
Trespass to the person is the intentional cause of injury, as opposed to the
negligent cause of injury. An employer can be vicariously liable for an employee
who commits trespass.
1) Assault
2) Battery
3) The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton
4) False Imprisonment
Actionable per se: without proof of damage and require an act, not an omission
Battery
“the direct and intentional application of force by D to C without lawful
justification”.
1) Intentional
a) Letang v Cooper: Negligence is not enough to show intentionality
b) Fowler v Lanning: C was shot by D. There would have been no trespass if
the shooting was caused unintentionally.
c) Innes v Wylle: Must be an act, not an omission.
d) Livingstone v MOD: Transferred malice still applies
2) Direct
a) Reynolds v Clarke: Includes if someone throws something on a road in
someone’s path.
b) Fagan v CMP: Did not remove car from policeman’s foot. This was an act,
not an omission.
c) Dodwell v Burford: D struck a horse that C was sitting on = direct.
d) DPP v K: boy hid acid in hand-dryer = direct.
3) Application of Force
a) Any physical contact
i) Cole v Turner: “the least touch of another in anger is a battery”
ii) R v Cotesworth : spitting
iii) Nash v Sheen: applying hair dye
4) Hostility
a) Wilson v Pringle: “it must be a question of fact”
5) Defences
a) Consent
i) Express = consent to broad nature and terms of medical procedure
(Chatterton v Gerson)
ii) Implied = getting on a tube at rush hour (Re F)
iii) R v Tabassum: patient consented to medical exam but D was not
medically qualified. Consent invalid.
iv) R v Brown: consent invalid for ABH
b) Necessity (Re A (Conjoined Twins))
i) the act is needed to avoid inevitable and irreparable evil
ii) no more should be done than reasonably necessary
iii) the evil inflicted must not be disproportionate to the evil avoided
Downloaded by: shaistaahmady89 |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
c) Self-Defence
i) Defence of person and property
ii) Cockroft v Smith: bit off finger to avoid being poked in the eye
iii) Bird v Holbrook: spring gun not acceptable to protect property
iv) Lane v Holloway: what is reasonable depends on the facts
d) Statutory Authority
i) Lawful arrest and detention
e) Reasonable Chastisement
i) Consider nature, context, duration, mental and physical consequences,
age and personal characteristics of the child, reasons for punishment.
f) Contributory Negligence is N/A (Co-Op v Pritchard)
g) Inevitable Accident
Assault
“an act that produces in C a reasonable expectation of immediate, unlawful force”
– R v Beasley
1) Intentional Act
a) Can be words without gestures (R v Wilson: “get out the knives”)
b) Silence can be assault (R v Ireland)
c) Words can negate gestures (Tuberville v Savage: hand on sword + “if it
were not assize time I would not take such language”).
2) Apprehension of Immediate Battery
a) A threat to future harm may not be enough (Thomas v NUM: miners who
were striking threatened to hurt him, but he was in a protected vehicle).
b) Effect on a reasonable person, not subjective apprehension (R v St George)
c) ‘Immediate’ can be any time in the near future (R v Ireland: silent phone
calls).
3) Defences – Same as Battery
The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton
Essentially practical jokes that cause harm.
In Wilkinson v Downton D told C that her husband had been badly injured in an
accident. C suffered nervous shock and D was held liable.
1) Deliberate acts or words
2) Calculated to cause harm to the claimant
3) Unlawfully
False Imprisonment
“an act of D that directly and intentionally causes the complete restriction of C’s
liberty without lawful justification”
1) Intentional Act
a) Accidently locking someone in is not false imprisonment (Sayer v Harlow)
Downloaded by: shaistaahmady89 |
Distribution of this document is illegal
, Stuvia.co.uk - The Marketplace for Revision Notes & Study Guides
2) Imprisonment
a) C’s liberty must be restricted in all directions (Bird v Jones: was not
allowed to walk across a bridge = not false imprisonment)
b) They are only expected to take reasonable means to gain their freedom
c) C does not need to be aware that he is being imprisoned (Meering v
Grahame-White Aviation: employee was locked in office b/c suspected of
theft. Asked to wait there).
d) No need for actual force (Davidson v CCNW: “stay here or I’ll kill you”)
3) False
a) Without lawful justification
i) Lawful includes contractual obligations (Robinson v Balmain New
Ferry: refused to pay a penny to get through a turnstile; Herd v
Weardale Steel: miner refused to continue his shift and demanded to
be brought to surface = no false imprisonment).
b) Wrongful continuation of lawful imprisonment can be false imprisonment
(Toumia v Evans: locked in cell for longer than usual b/c of prison officers’
dispute).
4) Defences – Same as Battery
Downloaded by: shaistaahmady89 |
Distribution of this document is illegal
