#17501 - Nominate Torts Trespass To The Person - Tort Law: Nominate Torts

TRESPASS TO THE PERSON Broad general principles. • Most common > assault, battery and false imprisonment • All forcible and direct and immediate injury to a person > same as land and goods. • Trespass actionable per se > presumed to be injured. Don't have to prove it • Can arise through Ds negligence > negligence as a form of conduct and as a state of mind would be sufficient to satisfy the court of trespass to le person • However, inadvertent injury not succeed, even if direct • You must show D acted voluntarily Fowley v Lanning Letang v Cooper. P sunbathing on stretch of grass close to car park of a hotel and the D drove his car over her legs. The injury was inadvertent but was direct. The court: abolished diff between case and trespass and adopted the test - Intentional - trespass - Unintentional - negligence. Wilson v pringle Battery Must show D did something that P would object to as an unlawful interference with P's life. - Action based on deliberate contact as opposed to negligent ASSAULT • An act which is INTENTIONALLY OR NEGLIGENTLY - causes P to immediately apprehend a contact with his person. • Assault is basically battery without physical contact • Assault doesn't involve contact, its about fear of contact • Contact through the senses • Where you have a battery, you also have an assault • You don't merely apprehend or fear that you'll be 'battered', but you'll be physically struck • The threat you're apprehending, must be capable of being carried out. • Doesn't matter what the P believes, its factually. > for example, if there's a gun pointed to someone that wasn't loaded, it wouldn't be assault but if it was loaded, it would. • D must be able to carry out the actual execution of the threat. • In other words, if the threat is carried out, the injury will occur. • Bullet must be in it and D must be able to pull the trigger Thomas v N.U.M In crossing a picket line, a number of minors issued threats, The non-striking minors sued union for conduct and lost. The non-striking minors had police accompaniment. Dullaghan v Hillen Initially, D was verbally abused by P. D retaliated and struck the P and broke his nose. Here, the court held that - P's words in insulting D didn't amount to an assault. An exception to words not being assault: - In an intimidator fashion R v Ireland Lord Steen said a silent telephone call may be assault. - Silence suggested could be an assault BATTERY • Direct, intentional and physical contact w/ person • You MUST PROVE THERE WAS NO CONSENT. < can't be implied - must be actually proven. • But, actionable per se, don't have to prove harm or injury • Protects against all permitted contacts irrespective of actual harm or injury Humphries v Connor