Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
L1 + L2 Intentional torts - Coggle Diagram
L1 + L2 Intentional torts
Trespass to persons
4 types of intentional torts
A tort is a breach of a legal duty redressable by a civil action.
Intentional torts - intentional interference with someone's bodily integrity.
Fowler v Lanning [1959] 1 QB 426
- Trespass to persons cannot occur if harm caused was unintentional and not negligent.
Battery
3 requirements:
2.Intentional contact
3.unlawful contact
1.Dicrect contact
Intetniaonl contact
Only requires intention to touch not to cause harm/damage.
“… In battery what is required is intentional contact not an intention to do harm.”
- F. A. Trindade, ‘Intentional Torts: Some Thoughts on Assault and Battery’ (1982) 2 OJLS 211, at 220
Direct physical contact
Understood simply as touching a person.
Unlawful contact
Wilson v Pringle [1987]
- 2 teens were playing, one was hurt. Couty found there was no hostile intention so no battery.
"A touching the claimant would object to would seem unlawful".
Contact must be hostile, without consent.
Chatteton v Gerson [1981]
- Must be no consent for battery. Consent is valid if the claimant has been informed of the broad nature of D’s acts, no need for C to be informed of every risk associated with the act.
Collins v Wilcock [1984]
- Touching is not unlawful if it is within the general exception of public life and everyday contact.
"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”
- Per Lord Justice Goff in
Collins v Wilcock
at 1177
Direct and intentional unlawful physical contact
Assault
2 requirements:
A direct threat
Intention to make C apprehend battery.
Direct threat
R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1998] AC 147
- D made silent phone calls to women. Court held, silence can constitute a direct threat.
A direct threat by the defendant, which intentionally places the claismnet in reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery.
Intention to make C apprehend battery
If there is no imminence, then there is no intention. E.g. Dow they have capacity or means to carry out attack?
Mbasogo v Logo [2006]
- Concerned a coup attempt. Court found, they did not have capacity to carry out attack (not armed) and overthrow the government, thus no intention.
Bici v Ministry of Defence [2004]
- Court, found there to be no evidence that the soldiers intended to put anyone in fear and make them liable.
D does not need to intend to inflict a battery, only an intention to make the C apprehend an imminent battery.
Tuberville v Savage [1669] 86 ER 684
- Plaintiff put hand on sword and threatened D. Assault requires intention and the act of assault. Threats of future harm do not constitute assault.
False impriosnment
3 requirements
2.Intentional restraint
3.Unlawful restraint
1.Complete restraint
The wrongful and intentional complete restraint of a person.
Complete restraint
Bird v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742
- Partial restraint does not constitute imprisonment, it must be complete.
Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692
- One's awareness of their restraint is not required for there to be complete restraint and false impriosnmnet.
Walker v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWCA Civ 897
- Restraint can be complete even if it only lasts for a few seconds.
Intentional restraint
Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2010] QB 732
- False imprisonment requires a positive action/direct action to demonstrate an intention to restrain
Unlawful restraint
Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] 1 AC 564
- Court held restraint by police officers at a protest was lawful as it was in order to ensure public safety.
Tort in Wilkinson
The intentional infliction of serious physical or mental harm, which has resulted in serious harm.
Wilkinson v Downton [1897]
- landmark decision.
Very rare and an extremely high bar to be met.
Modern day interpretation:
OPO v Rhodes [2015] UKSC
- son brings claim against farther who wrote book which details son's trauma. Held, conduct can be enough does not require stamina, however harm must be directed to cause harm towards the claimant. Held, harm was intended for the son book was for wider audience.
2 requirements
Mental element
Requires intention to cause severe distress, mental or physical. Does not need to intend to cause the barm that resulted only serve distress.
Conduct element
Requires words or conduct directed toward the claimant.
Consequence element
Consequence must be physical injury or recognisable psychological illness. AKA not normal emotions e.g. anxiety.