Intentional torts

Stephens v Myers [1830] 4 C&P 349

• C was acting as a chairman in a parish meeting.

• Sat 6 people away from the defendant on a table.

• Defendant was aggressive and motion was passed that he turned to be out of the meeting.

• After that the D threatened the C but was restrained by the person in between them.

• Claimants action was assault = court held that an assault had been committed.

• Restrainment was irrelevant.

• Apprehension of immediate and unlawful force is sufficient as assault.

Tuberville v Savage [1669] I Mod 3

• D blinded by the C by poking his sword in the Cs eye.

• Hand had been placed on the sword = could be assault but this was negated by the accompanying words which made it clear he would not inflict immediate and unlawful force on the claimant themselves.

Thomas v National Union of Miners (South Wales Area) [1986] ch20

• Miners were bussed into work through an angry picket line.

• People in the picket line made violent threatening gestures to the people in the bus.

• It was held there was no assault on the basis the threats could not be carried out because the mine workers were protected by protective shields placed on the bus and the presence of police.

R v ‘Ireland; R v ‘burstow (1998) Ac 147

• Appellant made 3 large phone calls to women and remained silent when they answered.

• Psychiatrists examined the women and said they suffered psychological damage.

• Second appellant directed harassing conduct towards women with whom he had previously had a social relationship.

• For 8 months made silent phone calls to her.

• Distributed offensive cards in the street where she lived.

• Sent her many notes.

• Appeared at home and place of work.

• Took photos of her.

• She suffered from depression as a result.

  • One question for the HOLs was; whether the making of a series of silent phone calls could amount to assault?

  • They held: yes, silent caller may cause the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence as the nature of the act is uncertain of his or her actions.

Falange v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439

• Defendant was instructed by a policeman to park his car in order for the policeman to ask him questions.

• Defendant drove car onto the policemans foot.

• The defendant declined after being askesd several times to do so to remove the vehicle from his foot.

  • Q was there a battery? failure to rectify situation = batter? yes.

  • Convicted of criminal offence.

Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984] NI 356 NICA

Transferred intetntion:

• Soldier fired a baton band at a rioter but missed and hit the claimant.

  • Intention to hit the rioter was transferred to the claminate who was able to establish a claimant battery unless the force could be justified.

Collins v Wilcock

• Interference with a persons body will only be lawful if consented to however, there is a broad exception on the basis that certain forms of contact are unavailable and therefore acceptable

Wilson v Pringle (1987) QB 237

• Claimant and defendant were both school boys.

• C was injured when D pulled Cs bag from his shoulder.

• D claimed his actions were horse play and that no injury was intended.

• C argued the intention to cause injury was irrelevant, only had to be intentional application of force.

  • Case went to the COA: Q was what did the C have to prove?

  • A) Intentional touching or contact in one form or another of the C by the D.

  • B) That the touching was hostile.

  • Q was how do you prove hostility?

    • (Does NOT have to be hostile to amount to battery).

Re F; F v West Berkshire Health Authority (1990) 2AC 1

• Consent to a surgical operation where the patient was suffering a serious mental disability.

• Surgical treatment without the consent of someone legally entitled to give consent on his or her behalf or other legal authority (court) is battery.

• Intention must be proved, intended to commit the act that amounts to battery, intention to injure is not necessary.

Chatteron v Gerson (1981) 1 QB 432

• Claimant had operation to relieve pain, did not work and worsened issue by causing additoinal loss of sensation.

• Sued the surgeon in both trespassand negligence.

• Both claims failed

• she argued she consented to the operation yet she wasnt given a proper explanation of the risks which materialised into the loss of sensation.

• Courts held claimant was explained broadly in terms of the procedure- which was consented.

  • (sufficient in 1981- not anymore)

R v Billinghurst (1978) Crim LR 553 (criminal and civil case)

• Off the ball punching in a rugby match.

• D was convicted of the crime of assault.

• D argued that this was a physical game and one could expect this to happen during the game.

  • When you consent to sport you consent to the rules of the game! Not being punched of the ball.

SPORT

R v Brown (1993) 2 WLR 556 (Criminal and civil proceedings)

• Sex activities conducted in private between a consented couple.

• Acts caused significant injuries.

• Case went to HOL where convictions for assault, ABH and malicious wounding were upheld.

  • Defence was consent yet majority in HOLDs (2/3) held the defence did not apply where injury was caused in the course of these sado acts and it wasnt in the publics interest to encourage this.

Cockroft v Smith (1705) 2 SALK 64

Claimant was a clerk of the court and during scuffle the claimant attened to poke the defendant in the eye.

• In response the defendant bit off the claimants finger

• Lord Justice Holt concluded the force used was unreasonable.

SELF-DEFENCE MUST BE REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE.

Ashley v Chief constable of Sussex Police [2008] UKHL 25

• Ashley had been fatally shot by the police during an armed raid.

• Claimant= son and father of the deceased brought actions against the chief constable alleging amongst other things in negligence, assault and battery.

• Chief constable conceded liability for negligence and for all compensatory damages flowing from then shooting itself.

• Issue= was the defence of SD available?

• where the assailant held the honest and genuine belief that he was in danger even though such belief was unreasonable.

• Constable argued that the criteria for SD in civil law should be the same as in criminal law.

Leigh v Gladstone (1909) 26 TLR 130

• C was a suffraget in prison on a hunger strike.

• Forcibly fed in prison by staff.

• Argued battery.

• Held: act of prison staff was lawful on the basis they use the minimum necessary force to save her life otherwise she’d have starved to death in custody.

Necessity: force used is the minimum necessary force used to preserve life.