Intentional Torts I
Page 1: Introduction to Intentional Torts
Overview of key intentional torts: battery, assault, and false imprisonment.
Page 2: Development of Intentional Torts
Historic Background: Modern law evolved from two historical writs:
Writ of Trespass: Refers to direct interference.
Writ of Trespass on the Case: Related to indirect interference, commonly known as negligence.
Differences in Tort Types:
Trespass: Actionable per se; damage need not be proven.
Trespass on the Case: Damage must be proven as it is the essence of the claim.
Onus of Proof: Lies on the plaintiff to demonstrate all elements of the claim.
Page 3: Overview of Trespass Torts
Types of Trespass Torts: Include trespass to person, land, and goods.
Focus on Trespass to Person:
Torts include battery, false imprisonment, and assault.
Common Elements:
Strict liability; intention to perform the act suffices.
No need for intention to injure or for harm to occur.
The act causing interference must be deliberate.
Page 4: Intentional Torts to the Person
Basis of Torts: Focus on the intentional act, not the resulting injury or damage.
Specific Torts:
Battery: Protects physical integrity.
Assault: Protects mental well-being.
False Imprisonment: Protects personal liberty.
Page 5: The Tort of Battery
Definition: A direct intentional act causing unauthorized contact with another person.
Key Point: Harm is not the primary issue; violation of consent is essential.
Page 6: Elements of Battery
An intentional and voluntary act by the defendant.
That directly causes contact with another person’s body.
Page 7: Examples of Contact in Battery
Unwelcome actions that constitute battery:
An unwelcome kiss.
Hitting, spitting, or throwing items at someone.
Bumping or kicking someone intentionally.
Page 8: Case Study: Rixon v. Star City (2001)
Facts: Security at a casino engaged Mr. Rixon to enforce exclusion.
Court Ruling: No battery; actions were justified to gain attention.
Primary Insight: Positive acts are required; mere omissions aren't sufficient.
Page 9: Case Study: Fagan v. Metropolitan Commissioner of Police (1969)
Facts: Motorist accidentally parked on a policeman's foot and refused to move.
Court Ruling: Not removing the car constituted battery.
Significance: Demonstrates liability can arise from intentional omissions.
Page 10: Definition of Assault
Assault as a tort involves a direct threat causing apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact.
Important Point: The plaintiff’s mental state is key; fear is not required.
Page 11: Elements of Assault
An intentional voluntary act or threat by the defendant.
Creating reasonable apprehension in another person (the plaintiff).
Must occur without lawful justification.
Page 12: Case Study: New South Wales v. McMaster (2015)
Incident: McMaster ran towards police holding a metal rod during an armed response.
Court Ruling: His actions amounted to negligent assault as he posed a threat.
Page 13: Case Study: NSW v. Ibbet (2006)
Incident: Police followed Mr. Ibbet home and threatened his mother.
Court Ruling: Mrs. Ibbet awarded damages; actions deemed threatening.
Page 14: Case Study: Zanker v. Vartzokas (1988)
Incident: Woman trapped in a vehicle with a man making threatening offers.
Court Ruling: Considered imminent threat, despite delays in the violence.
Page 15: Case Study: Barton v. Armstrong (1969)
Incident: Armstrong threatened Barton over the phone without specifying time.
Court Ruling: Recognized as an imminent threat.
Page 16: False Imprisonment
Definition: Unlawful restraint of an individual's personal liberty.
Page 17: Elements of False Imprisonment
A positive voluntary act by the defendant directly causing restraint.
Total deprivation of the plaintiff's liberty.
Must occur without lawful justification or consent.
Page 18: Case Study: Ruddock v. Taylor (2005)
Facts: Detained following lawful visa cancellation.
Court Ruling: No false imprisonment due to legality of detention.
Page 19: Case Study: Bird v. Jones (1845)
Incident: Plaintiff blocked from proceeding down a pathway.
Court Ruling: Not false imprisonment due to lack of total restraint.
Page 20: Case Study: Murray v. Ministry of Defence (1988)
Insight: Awareness of deprivation is not essential for false imprisonment claims.
Page 21: Case Study: Balmain New Ferry v. Robertson (1907)
Incident: Restrictions on exiting wharf without payment.
Outcome Contemplation: Consideration of signage legality and passenger rights.