Intentional Interference with the Person

These flashcards cover key concepts, definitions, and significant cases related to intentional interference with the person as outlined in the lecture notes.

Fault-based liability

Liability requiring proof that the defendant was at fault or fell below the standard of a reasonable person.

Strict liability

Liability that does not require proof of fault; the defendant is liable even if they behaved as a reasonable person.

Intentional liability

Liability requiring relevant intention from the defendant, as opposed to negligence which is usually unintentional.

Negligence

A core example of fault-based liability where a defendant fails to meet the reasonable standard.

Vicarious liability

A type of strict liability where an employer is liable for the torts of their employees.

Product liability

Liability under the Consumer Protection Act for defective products.

Rylands v Fletcher

A key case establishing a principle of strict liability for certain types of hazardous activities.

Battery

An intentional unconsented touching of another person.

Intention (in battery)

The defendant needs only intend the touching; no intent to harm is required.

Recklessness

Sufficient intent for battery, where the defendant is aware of the risk of touching.

Scott v Shepherd

A case that demonstrated the element of direct and immediate force in battery.

No consent

Necessary element for a battery to be actionable; implied consent exists for everyday conduct.

Assault

Acting to put someone in fear of imminent battery.

False imprisonment

Confining another against their will without lawful justification.

Confinement (in false imprisonment)

Must be more than mere obstruction to be actionable.

Murray v Minister of Defence

Case where awareness of confinement was not necessary for false imprisonment.

Iqbal v Prison Officers Assn

Case establishing that false imprisonment requires a positive act, not just omission.

Consent (in tort)

An element of tort; cannot stem from fraud or misrepresentation.

Freeman v Home Office

Case that established consent is not a defense but an element of the tort.

Bolam test

Initially used for informing patients about risks; replaced by informed consent.

Gillick v DHSS

Case establishing that minors' consent can be given by parents or guardians if competent.

Ex turpi causa

A defense which states a plaintiff cannot recover damages for injuries sustained during illegal activities.

Necessity

A defense applicable when consent cannot be obtained to prevent greater harm.

Public necessity

Applies when a tort is committed to prevent significant harm to the public.

Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police

Case testing the limits of police authority in using intentional torts.

Self-defense

A defense if the force used is reasonably necessary to protect oneself from harm.

Proportionate force

Force used in self-defense must not exceed what is necessary for protection.

Wilkinson v Downton

Case establishing liability for causing distress through false information.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Legislation dealing with civil and criminal offenses of harassment.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

A tort requiring intentional outrageous conduct causing severe distress.

O v Rhodes

Case clarifying liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Overlap with criminal law

Both intentional torts and crimes can involve wrongful acts, but standards of evidence and defense vary.