Summary Tort Law Revision Notes

Tort Law Revision Notes 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: conduct e.g. point a loaded gun, to shake a fist, to curse in a threatening manner - Reed v Cocker; a mere omission will not suffice apprehension of an immediate battery no good if not possible, e.g. Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (picketing miners held back by police) apprehension must be physical contact (e.g. not photographing someone against their will – Murray v Minister of Defence ingredients: touching any contact will suffice, no matter how trivial – Cole v Turner intention to commit the act but intention to injure not necessary – Wilson v Pringle intention can be transferred, e.g. if A intends to strike B, but misses and inadvertently strikes C, he is liable in battery to C – James v Campbell ingredients: complete restraint e.g. not valid if claimant can leave (even if not his preferred route) – Bird v Jones or if able to escape: Wright v Wilson must be intentional but malice not necessary - R v Governor of Brockhill Prison (No 2) Brandish an unloadedpistol? Not assault because defendant could not have intended battery * “There must be the means of carrying the threat into effect” Tindal CJ in Stephens v Myers * but later (criminal) case of R v St George – the gist of the tort is to cause a reasonable person to apprehend battery (reasonable person would not know that the gun is unloaded) – objective test Words * mere words can constitute assault since R v Ireland * words can negate an assault if they ‘explain away’, e.g. “if it were not assize me, I would not take such language from you” Turberville v Savage (1669) * a conditional threat, e.g. “if you do not leave…” will constitute assault where defendant has not authority to ask claimant to leave – Read v Cocker Hostility required? * Wilson v Pringle – “The touching must be proved to be a hostile touching” * However, R v Chief Constable of Devon – an unwanted kiss may be a battery (not hostile) * And medical treatment without consent is not per se a hostile act – St Georges Healthcare Trust v S * And Lord Goff in F v West Berkshire Health Authority disapproved of the hostility requirement: “difficult to reconcile with the principle that any touching of another’s body” amounts to battery Absence of consent? Freeman v Home Office (No 2): * onus of proving absence of consent on claimant * Note: claimant need only raise sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the purported consent - consent can still be attempted as a defence * Need not be imprisonment, confinement can be anywhere e.g. in a vehicle: Burton v Davies * Barriers need not be physical, e.g. using authority to make somebody stay: Harnett v Bond * Actual knowledge by the claim