LAW OF TORTS

1. LAW OF TORTS Lecture 1Lecturer: Greg YoungIntentional Torts - Battery- Assault

2. LEC Torts Website • www.usyd.edu.au/lec/subjects/torts//materials.htm • Past exams & comments: www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/law/lpab.html#exams

3. WHAT IS A TORT? • A tort is a civil wrong • That (wrong) is based a breach of a duty imposed by law • Which (breach) gives rise to a (personal) civil right of action for for a remedy not exclusive to another area of law

4. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TORT AND A CRIME • A crime is public /community wrong that gives rise to sanctions usually designated in a specified code. A tort is a civil ‘private’ wrong. • Action in criminal law is usually brought by the state or the Crown. Tort actions are usually brought by the victims of the tort. • The principal objective in criminal law is punishment. In torts, it is compensation

5. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TORT AND A CRIME • Differences in Procedure: • Standard of Proof • Criminal law: beyond reasonable doubt • Torts: on the balance of probabilities

6. THE AIMS OF TORT LAW • Loss distribution/adjustment: shifting losses from victims to perpetrators • Compensation: Through the award of (pecuniary) damages • The object of compensation is to place the victim in the position he/she was before the tort was committed. • Punishment: through exemplary or punitive damages. This is a secondary aim.

7. INTERESTS PROTECTED IN TORT LAW • Personal security • Trespass • Negligence • Reputation • Defamation • Property • Trespass • Conversion • Economic and financial interests

8. INTENTIONAL TORTS INTENATIONAL TORTS Trespass Conversion Detinue

9. WHAT IS TRESPASS? • Intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes an injury to the P or his /her propertywithout lawful justification • The Elements of Trespass: • fault: intentionalor negligent act - injury must be direct • injury* may be to the P or to his/her property - No lawful justification

10. *INJURY IN TRESPASS • Injury = a breach of right, not necessarily actual damage • Trespass requires only proof of injury not actual damage

11. THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS Intentional/ negligent act Direct interference with person or property Absence of lawful justification + + + A specific form of trespass “x” element =

12. SPECIFIC FORMS OF TRESPASS TRESPASS PERSON PROPERTY BATTERY ASSAULT FALSE IMPRISONMENT

13. BATTERY • The intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes a physical interference with the body of P without lawful justification • The distinguishing element: physical interference with P’s body

14. THE INTENTIONAL ACT IN BATTERY • No liability without intention • The intentional act = basic willful act + the consequences.

15. CAPACITY TO FORM THE INTENT • D is deemed capable of forming intent if he/she understands the nature of (‘intended’) his/her act • -Infants • Lunatics • Morris v Marsden • Hart v A. G. of Tasmania( infant cutting another infant with razor blade)

16. THE ACT MUST CAUSE PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE • The essence of the tort is the protection of the person of P. D’s act short of physical contact is therefore not a battery • The least touching of another could be battery • Cole v Turner (dicta per Holt CJ) • ‘The fundamental principle, plain and incontestable, is that every person’s body is inviolate’ ( per Goff LJ, Collins v Wilcock)

17. The Nature of the Physical Interference • Rixon v Star City Casino (D places hand on P’s shoulder to attract his attention; no battery) • Collins v Wilcock (Police officer holds D’s arm with a view to restraining her when D declines to answer questions and begins to walk away; battery) • Platt v Nutt

18. THE INJURY MUST BE CAUSED DIRECTLY • Injury should be the immediate: • Scott v Shepherd ( Lit squib/fireworks in market place) • Hutchins v Maughan (poisoned bait left for dog) • Southport v Esso Petroleum(Spilt oil on P’s beach)

19. THE ACT MUST BE WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION • Consent is Lawful justification • Consent must be freely given by the P if P is able to understand the nature of the act • Lawful justification includes the lawful act of law enforcement officers • Wilson v. Marshall(D accused of assaulting police officer, held officer’s conduct not lawful)

20. TRESPASS:ASSAULT • The intentional/negligent act or threat of D which directly places P in reasonable apprehension of an imminent physical interference with his or her person or of someone under his or her control

21. THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT • There must be a direct threat: • Hall v Fonceca(Threat by P who shook hand in front of D’s face in an argument) • In general, mere words are not actionable • Barton v Armstrong • In general, conditional threats are not actionable • Tuberville v Savage • Police v Greaves • Rozsa v Samuels

22. THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT • The apprehension must be reasonable; the test is objective • The interference must be imminent • Rozsa v Samuels • Police v Greaves • Hall v Fonceca • Zanker v Vartzokas(P jumps out of a moving van to escape from D’s unwanted lift)

23. THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS Intentional/ negligent act Direct interference Absence of lawful justification + + + A specific form of trespass “x” element =

24. SPECIFIC FORMS OF TRESPASS TRESPASS PERSON PROPERTY BATTERY ASSAULT FALSE IMPRISONMENT