Torts - Trespass to Person

Graeme Austin is the instructor for the first nine weeks, pronouns he/him.
Yvonne Oldfield will take over for the subsequent three weeks of the first trimester and six weeks of the second trimester.
Nicole Moram will cover the final six weeks of the second trimester.
Madhu Jai Chandra is the teaching assistant (TA).
- Office hours are on Tuesdays.
Instructor's office hours are on Thursdays and located on the Third Floor of a building accessible via the library lift or stairs, academic office on the right towards the Clock Tower.
Office hours are for questions about the course material.
All questions are welcome, even if they seem simple.
Confidential matters should be discussed with tikoko advisors, while career-related questions can be addressed by the instructor.
Late arrivals are acceptable due to transport or childcare issues, but arriving late with coffee is discouraged.
Emphasis is on fulfilling responsibilities and valuing legal education.
Time will be allocated for questions in class, starting from Thursday.
Asking questions benefits everyone and clarifies unclear points.
Lawyers should speak for those who cannot, practicing this skill is crucial during law school.
Use law school to develop the ability to speak about the law and pose questions.
Speaking up becomes easier with practice.

No tutorials; instead, there are workshops.
Workshops are timetabled and can be found on Nuku.
Workshops are facilitated by the same instructor each week (Graeme Austin, Yvonne Oldfield, or Madhu Jai Chandra) to ensure consistency and equality.
Instructors for workshops are experienced legal professionals, not just senior students.
A pass/fail legal writing exercise is posted on Nuku with specified dates.
For administrative inquiries, contact Zoe Kakia, the administrator.
Always address emails professionally (e.g., "Kia ora, Zoe" or "Dear Zoe").
Administrative questions should be directed to Zoe.
Academic questions should be asked during office hours or in class.
Workshop dates are available on Nuku.
Congratulations on reaching 200-level law.

Polly and Dora were at a workplace bonding session involving paintball on December 21.
Participants warned against shooting anyone without a face mask.
Polly removed her mask due to contact lens issues.
Dora shot Polly in the eye, causing damage.
Polly (plaintiff) is filing civil proceedings against Dora (defendant).
Many torts are also crimes, but this case focuses on civil law.

Is it sufficient for Polly to state, "Dora shot me"?
Imagine advising a supervising partner on the sufficiency of the statement of claim.
Requires more than just stating the defendant shot the plaintiff.
Sasha points out the need for demonstrating intention or negligence.

A cause of action is a factual situation that enables a person to seek a remedy in court.
The same facts can lead to multiple causes of action.
The plaintiff presents allegations of fact in the statement of claim.
The defendant responds by admitting or denying the allegations.
A statement of claim that simply states, "Dora shot Polly on this date with paint" is insufficient.
If claiming negligence, specific particulars of how Dora was negligent must be provided.
For battery, intention must be established.

In Fowler v Lanning, the cause of action for battery was insufficient because there was no allegation of intention.
The court noted no suggestion that the shooting was intentional.

Based on Fowler v Lanning, the answer is "no," the facts are not sufficient.
Provide reasons for this answer by referring to relevant case law.
- Fowler and Lanning: No good cause of action unless intention or negligence is alleged; Polly has alleged neither.
- Letang and Cooper: Confirmed that a factual situation enables one person to obtain a remedy from the court against another person. However, that is contingent on intention or negligence on the part of the other person.
- Beals and Hayward: This was confirmed, and the case deals with a shooting, so is factually similar.

Students were encouraged organize study groups.
The instructor can help with group formations in class. They will write down names for all to see.
Use official university email addresses for safety.
Study groups provide social interaction in the absence of tutorials.

Three types: Battery, Assault, and False Imprisonment.
Ancient torts originating from Norman England.
Common law developed as a legal system common to all in England and Wales.
Writs (w.r.i.t.) of trespass were used to sue someone in court.
- Trespass viet armis: trespass with force and arms.
Trespass torts originally concerned direct harms.
Indirect harms were addressed via "trespass on the case."
Case law (Fowler v Lanning, Letang v Cooper, Beals v Hayward) shifted the focus from directness to intentional or negligent interferences.

Do you need to be angry to be liable for battery? No.
Oliver mentioned that "the least touching of another in anger is a battery."
Forde v Skinner: Cutting someone's hair without anger can still constitute battery.
If cutting of hair was done with malice to humiliate then damages would be aggravated.

The case does not explicitly state that the haircutting was done out of anger.
It suggests it would aggravate damages if the hairdresser intended to embarass or humiliate the person.

The court used the example of one rudely pushing past someone in Colin Turner, indicating intention is an element.
Anger is not necessarily a requirement, however even then, it may still be considered a battery.

Lord Goff gives a long discussion about what battery it, in the context of consent to medical treatment.
Even though we aren't suing each other for battery, criminal law is different.
Sitting behind