Law of Tresspass

LAW OF tort LAW2002-N 20011/12 Lectures 3 and 4 Trespass to the Person Lectures 5 12Negligence TRESPASS TO THE someone Reading Steele Chap 2 to summon 81 Street Chap 3 Winfield Chap 4. ASSAULT AND barrage fire Introduction Battery intentional application of force to a nonher person. encroachment exemplify of the defendant which causes to the claimant levelheaded apprehension of the infliction of an immediate shelling on him by the defendant. Battery 1. The char momenter of the act of D a)It mustiness be a positive act. b)D must have control everyplace what he is doing. c)There must be force and contact. Collins v Wilcock 1984 all told(a) ER 374Wilson v Pringle 1987 QB 237. In Re F (Mental Patient Sterilization) 1990 2 AC 1 2. State of Mind ie. the relationship between capitalise and negligence. Letang v Cooper 1965 1 QB 232 1964 3 WLR 573 1964 2 altogether ER 929 1964 2 Lloyds Rep. 339. billhook that since Fowler v Lanning 1959 1 QB 426 1959 2 WLR 241 1959 1 All ER 290. C must prove that D acted intentionally or negligently. 3. Livingstvirtuoso v Ministry of Defence (1984) 15 NIJB transferred malice 4. No consent by C and the burden is on C to prove it. Freeman v Home Office (No 2) 1984 QB 524 5. No damage need be proved. storm 1.This way of life the act of putting another person in honest fear or apprehension of immediate battery. eg. pointing arch gun vibe ones fist under Cs nose. But not shaking fist from window of departing train. Thomas v NUM 1985 2 All ER 1, 24 2. unspotted words are not assault however menacing in that respect must be threatening acts Meades Case (1823) 1 Lew CC 184 No words or singing are equivalent to assault. cf. R v Wilson 1955 1 WLR 493 However a)There is no clear laterality on this rule. b)In the nature of things threatening words are usually come with by threatening gestures. c)Words accompanying a menacing gesture whitethorn negative ts be an assault. Turbervell v Savadge (1669) 1 Mod. Rep. 3 2 Keb 545 N oteStreet says that it is preferent to treat this statement as merely an illustration of the doctrine that D must have caused C to apprehend an immediate contact quite than to make it a separate rule. A case to be wonderful is where there is a conditional threat Ansell v Thomas 1974 Crim LR 31 See also Read v vitamin Cr (1853) 13 C. B. 850 3. Pointing a loaded pistol is obviously an assault. What if it is put down but C does not recognize this? There is one criminal case where it was the ratio that to point an unloaded gun at P is an assaultR v St George (1840) 9 C&P 483, 492. 4. If Ds blow is intercepted by a third party this will silent be an assault. Stephens v Myers (1830) 4 C 349 34 R. R. 811. 5. The act of D need not produce real fear just reasonable apprehension. 6. There can be battery without assault. FALSE IMPRISONMENT expositionThe infliction of bodily restraint which is not expressly or impliedly appoint by the law. Winfield. State of Mind This tort usually involves an intentional act in the sense that D must intend to do act which is at least substantially certain to effect the confinement.It is, however, a tort of strict liability in that there need be no intention to act unlawfully R v Governors of Brockhill Prison ex parte Evans No. 2 2001 2 A. C. 19 Malice is irrelevant. On principle negligence ought to be enough. Accordingly, if a person locks a door being negligently unaware of the presence of somebody in the room, this should be foolish imprisonment. Street False wrongful. Imprisonment Every confinement of the person is an imprisonment, whether it be in a common prison, or in a close house, or in the stocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the public streets Blackstone.The character of Ds act 1. There need be no demonstrable incarceration. 2. Physical force is not necessary. Meering v graham flour White Aviation Co 122 LT 44 3. The area of confinement may be very large. 4. Restraint must be complete. Bird v Jon es (1845) 7 QB 742 9 Jur 87 66 RR 564. 5. If a person has the means of escape, but does not know it, it is submitted by Winfield that his detention is nevertheless out of true imprisonment unless any reasonable man would have realised that he had an available outlet. 6. work on must be direct. 7. There must normally be a positive act rather than an omission.Herd v Weardale Steel, Coke and Coal Co 1915 AC 67 111 LT 660. Knowledge of C herring v Boyle (1834) 1 CM&R 6 Car&P 4 Tyr 801 3 LJ Ex 344 cfMeering v Grahame White Aviation Co (Supra) Murray v Minister of Defence 1985 1 WLR 692 No proof of actual damage is necessary. INTENTIONAL PHYSICAL HARM OTHER THAN TRESPASS TO THE PERSON The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton An act wilfully done which is metrical to cause, and does cause, physical harm to a person is a tort, although it may not be trespass to the person or other specific tort. This principle was laid down by WRIGHT, J. in Wilkinson v Downton 1897 2 QB 57 76 LT 493.Upheld by C. A in Janvier v Sweeney 1919 2 KB 316 121 LT 179. In Wainwright v Home Office 2002 3 WLR all three judges in CA held the view that either actual intention or objective recklessness would suffice. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 But see also Hunter v Canary sorrel 1997 AC 655 DEFENCES TO AN ACTION FOR TRESPASS TO THE PERSON Self Defence main question is whether force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances. Prevention of trespass to land or ejection of trespassers from land Note that unless the trespasser is entering by force, D must ask him to leave behind before using force against him.Volenti Burden is on C to apply lack of consent. Parental or other authority Inevitable contingency Not relevant as a self-renunciation. Since Fowler v Lanning (supra) the burden has been on C to prove that Ds act was intentional or negligent. Failure by C to fulfil a reasonable condition This is a defence to false imprisonment. NoteRobinson v Balmain Ferry 1910 AC 295 Herd v Weardale (supra) D acting in support of the law Dallison v Caffery 1965 1 QB 348 1964 3 WLR 385 1964 2 All E 610 cfHogg v Ward (1858) 27 LJ Ex 443.