Torts: Trespass to Person

Course Introduction and Overview

Welcome to 200-level law at Te Herenga Waka.
Graeme Austin is the instructor for the first nine weeks (pronouns: he/him).
Yvonne Oldfield will teach the following three weeks of the first trimester and six weeks of the second trimester.
Nicole Moram will teach the last six weeks of the second trimester.
Madhu Jai Chandra is the teaching assistant (TA) for the course. Office hours are on Tuesdays.
Graeme Austin's office hours are on Thursdays after the stream, located on the Third Floor of the building (lift access via the library).
Office hours are for asking questions about course material; no question is considered silly.
Confidential matters should be discussed with tikoko advisors, but career advice can be provided.
Students are encouraged to arrive on time, but late arrivals are acceptable due to transport or childcare issues.
Coming late with coffee is discouraged as it implies prioritizing coffee over class attendance.
Commitment to legal education and responsibilities to future clients are emphasized.

Class Participation and Questioning

Time will be allocated for questions in class, starting on Thursday.
Asking questions benefits all students and clarifies unclear points.
Students should interrupt if something is unclear.
Lawyers speak for those who cannot, so law school is the time to practice speaking and questioning skills.
Practicing these skills in a low-stakes environment is crucial for future professional responsibilities.

Course Structure and Workshops

No tutorials are offered. Instead, there are workshops timetabled on Nuku.
Workshops are led by the same person each week (Graeme Austin, Yvonne Oldfield, or Madhu Jai Chandra) to ensure consistency and equality of experience.
Instructors are legal professionals, not third or fourth-year students.
There is a pass/fail legal writing exercise with dates posted on Nuku.

Administrative Matters

For administrative inquiries, contact Zoe Kakia via email with respectful greetings (e.g., "Kia ora, Zoe, dear Zoe").
Academic questions should be directed to office hours or asked in class.
Workshop timetable is available on Nuku. Check the dates when preparing for class.

Congratulations and Course Overview

Congratulations on entering 200-level law; acknowledge your efforts.
The majority of the class comprises students taking their first 200-level subject.

Fact Pattern: Polly and Dora

Incident: Polly and Dora were at a workplace paintball bonding session on December 21.
Warning: Participants were told not to shoot anyone without a face mask.
Event: Polly removed her face mask due to a contact lens issue, and Dora shot her in the eye, causing damage.
Legal Action: Polly (plaintiff) files civil proceedings against Dora (defendant).
Note: Torts can also be crimes, but this case focuses on civil law (one party suing another).
Question: If the statement of claim simply says, "Defendant shot the plaintiff," is that sufficient?

Legal Analysis

The supervising partner asks if "defendant shot the plaintiff" is a sufficient statement of claim.
Response: Sasha suggests it requires showing intention or negligence.
Question restated: Does the statement adequately describe a cause of action?
Revised factual statement: "On or about 21 December 2024, Dora shot Polly in the eye with paint."
Definition of Cause of Action: A factual situation that enables one person to obtain a remedy from the court against another person (Latang and Cooper).
Plaintiff's Allegations: The plaintiff sets out the facts in the statement of claim, describing a legal claim.
Defendant's Response: The defendant admits or denies each allegation of fact.

Establishing a Cause of Action

Statement of Claim: The claim states "Dora shot Polly on this date with paint," but that is not enough.
To give rise to a legal claim, Polly needs to show some sort of wrong.
For a negligence claim, you must give particulars of the negligence, showing how Dora was negligent.
For the tort of battery, intention must be established.

Fowler v Lanning

Fowler v Lanning: The shooting party case.
Problem: The claim for battery lacked an allegation of intention.
No indication that the shooting was intentional.
When claiming negligence, one has to give details of negligence.

Application to the Polly and Dora Case

Supervising Partner's Question: Are the facts alleged here a good cause of action?
Initial Response: Based on Fowler v Lanning, the answer is no.
Reasons for the No:
- Fowler v Lanning: There is no good cause of action unless intention or negligence is alleged; Polly has alleged neither.
- Latang and Cooper: This confirms that it's not enough just to say "this happened".
- Beals and Hayward: This was confirmed in Beals and Hayward, where there wasn't an adequate allegation of intention or negligence, similar facts to the case.
- New Zealand Law: The principle has been adopted into New Zealand law in Beals and Hayward.
Legal Position: State precisely, back it up with authority.

Study Groups

Study groups create a kind of social aspect, peer bonding.
Use an official university email to identify study groups.

Trespass to the Person

Three trespasses to the person: Battery, assault, and false imprisonment.
Very ancient torts originating from the King's Courts (common law) in England and Wales. The King's Courts were common to everyone.
Writs: To sue, one had to go get a writ. One of the writs was the writ of trespass. If you wanted to sue somebody, then you had to go to court and get what was called a writ, w r I t, a writ, and one of the writs was the writ of trespass, and I put this in the notes, trespass viet armis, trespass with force and arms.
Trespass: Originally about direct harms.
Indirect Harms: Indirect Interference with others in a legal way.
Evolution: Directness is still relevant, but show an intention for the tort of battery.
Show the failure to exercise reasonable care if it is negligee.

Meaning of Intention

Cases to consider: Colin Turner and Ford and Skinner.
Question: Does battery require anger?
Oliver's Point: "The least touching of another in anger is battery" (Colin Turner).
Anger: Anger being a part the element, consistent with Ford and Skinner?
- Ford v Skinner: They cut her hair. There's nothing in the facts to suggest they were angry when they cut her hair.
Question of Humiliation: If hair was cut to humiliate her, the damages would be aggravated.
Ford & Skinner: You don't need to show that somebody was angry to have a battery, it's just clear that they intended to cut the hair.
Cutting hair with malice to bring it down in the world to humiliate her would aggravate her damage.
Already in Ford and Skinner, we're seeing that you don't need to show anger, it's just intention to cut the hair. If you are angry and you humiliate her, that might aggravate the damages, but it's not necessary.
Intention does not require anger.
Other things in the case indicate that any is not a requirement, but it could be a battery if somebody rudely pushes past you, that could be a battery.

Colin Turner

Colin Turner: Gives you an example of what a battery is.

Reference to INRAEF

INRAEF: Lord Goff gives us a long discussion of what battery is in the context of consent to medical treatment.
Informed Consent: Sitting behind is tort of battery.
Principle: Without consent, somebody cutting you would be a battery.
Anger: Not a requirement.
Lord Goff does say without concert or legal principle that will apply, that would be battery, then a RAF shows you that often there is not a requirement.
You've read enough, we've discussed enough for you to go, No even though in Colin Turner, it's Oliver's point, the court said the least touching of another in anger is a battery. Anger is clearly now a requirement.
Johnny did something really fancy and applied other examples in the case which show lack of anger.

Robin and Charlie Hypothetical

Robin says, "I didn't mean any harm, in fact I had this overwhelming sense of I love this person, so therefore I'm going to kiss them, you know."
Zandi adds that this is "No awful excuse."
Statement of Legal Principle:
- Underlying Principle: Every person's body is inviolate. The tort of battery doesn't require injury. Everyone is protected against any form of physical molestation, without consent.

Key Points

Tort of trespass to the person is actionable per se (does not require injury).
Actionable per se: actionable in itself.
Nord Goff tells us that every person's body is inviolate
This could aggravate the damage.

Scotland v Shepherd

Scotland v Shepherd: The firework case. Intention is more than I intended to make, but it only contact with this person, that person that it can include. A sense of recklessness come kind of reckless as to the consequences of my action.
Split the court.
Putting It All Together: Do you need to intend to do harm? No. What do you need to intend to do? Intend to do an action which. A, it's to do an intentional. It's an intention to do the thing that would constitute the battery, which we know from Lord Golf means to make contact with the person of another because harm or damage is not an element of the cause of action because it's action will pursue you. You don't need to intend to do harm.

Directness

Directness: I touch the horse that you're on. I whack the horse on the horse's hind leg and the horse bolts and you fall off.

Shining Items

Question: Shining bright torch in somebody's eye is probably a battery
Common Law: General common law concept.
Material to be covered: The fact that there will be no meaning in every word.
Common Law: we're trying to think about these broad concepts that evolve over time.
Material to be covered: If it was a common loss site and every word matters, whereas with common law, we're not thinking about every single word, we're trying to think about these broad concepts that evolve over time.

Recklessness

Recklessness: Recklessness is all objective, which is what would a reasonable person think, not you. Not one would a reasonable person think.
You'd spend a whole lot more time on these torts, ACC takes away liability in many instances.

Definitions of Batteries

Act of intentionally applying force to the body of another without the person's consent or other lawful justification.
Stephen Todd writes that, A better yet broader battery is the act of intentionally interfering with the bodily integrity of another person. This is how to capture the touch with torch or vapes and to even the horses.

Final Example

Danny owns a four-hectare property beside a remote beach with crib on it. It doesn't have it. When he bought the property, he employed Stacy to drill five long drop holes away from the crib, but close to road. In fact, they're on road reserve and he covered all of these up with the boards. Each year on the day Danny leaves at the end of the summer, he gets this job apparently I get this job in our family. He covers up the whole they use that summer with dirt and board. In August, Pete will walking past the property with his dog, which ran off road into Danny's property just at the point where the long drop holes are located. Pete followed the dog onto road reserve as you do. He did not see the board. Which that had become a bit rod and he felt holy, does this constituent battery? The answer is: no.
Why: there's no intention.
There is no intention to do what?:
What and to make what a good argument of intent and for him to fall in. This is why it falls as insufficient.
Reason: this is not there's no intention to cause injury to Pete or someone the position of Pete and it's and it sufficiently direct.
Closing: We'll pick up and continue on the batter material on Thursday and also if you can move on the assault material.