1 / 20

LW 2103 Law of Tort

LW 2103 Law of Tort. Fact Issue Rules Application Conclusion. Fact. Hugo quarreled with the couple, Tim and Claudia over the renting of Hugo’s flat Hugo threw a pair of scissors at Tim Tim dodged But they hit Claudia. Issue.

courtney
Download Presentation

LW 2103 Law of Tort

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. LW 2103 Law of Tort • Fact • Issue • Rules • Application • Conclusion

  2. Fact • Hugo quarreled with the couple, Tim and Claudia over the renting of Hugo’s flat • Hugo threw a pair of scissors at Tim • Tim dodged • But they hit Claudia

  3. Issue • Can Tim bring a legal action to Hugo, even though he was not hit? • Can Claudia bring a legal action to Hugo? • If yes, in what legal reasons?

  4. Rules • Both assault and battery • An act must be direct and intentional • Proof of damage is not required

  5. Rules • Definition of “Assault” • any direct and intentional act or conduct of the defendant which puts a reasonable man in apprehension of an imminent physical contact with his body

  6. Rules • “Assault” • The defendant actually attempts to strike the plaintiff but fails • The defendant does not make any actual attempt but apparently prepares for an assault • Only threatening words are uttered but both parties are not in presence of each other

  7. Rules • Case – Assault • Turberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3 • I de s et ux v W de s (1348), Year Books Liber Assisarum s 99, p 60

  8. Rules • Case – Turberville v Savage • It was held that the words negatived what would otherwise have been an assault • The defendant himself made it clear that he would not attack the plaintiff

  9. Rules • Case -- I de s et ux v W de s • Typical assault case • It was held that where the defendant struck at the plaintiff with a hatchet but missed her, it was assault.

  10. Rules • Definition of “Battery” • any direct and intentional application of force by the defendant to the person of the plaintiff • to protect a person against all unpermitted contacts irrespective of whether there is any physical harm or insult

  11. Rules • Battery requires some positive act, as opposed to a mere omission, resulting in actual physical contact with the plaintiff’s body

  12. Rules • Case – Battery • Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 • Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440 • Pursell v Horn (1838) 8 Ad & E1 602

  13. Rules • Case – Collins v Wilcock • The fundamental principle that every person’s body is inviolate…. This is a question of physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life.

  14. Rules • Case – Wilson v Pringle • …. Hostility was not to be construed as malice or ill-will and would be a question of fact in each case. The act of touching in itself might display hostility….

  15. Rules • Case -- Pursell v Horn • The application of force need not be flesh to flesh but may be effected through other means, such as striking the plaintiff with a knife or other objects.

  16. Application • Prima facie • Hugo has committed assault to Tim, and • Committed battery to Claudia

  17. Application • In Tim’s situation • The defendant, Hugo, actually attempts to strike the plaintiff but fails • Similar to the case of I de s et ux v W de s (1348), the defendant was liable to assault even though the attack missed

  18. Application • The case of Turberville v Savage may not be applied • What the defendant did was actually hit Tim, not through threatening words

  19. Application • In Claudia’s situation • Hugo did use direct and intentional application of force by the defendant to the person of the plaintiff

  20. Conclusion • From prima facie evidence • Tim can sue Hugo on the ground of assault • Claudia can sue Hugo on the ground of battery

More Related