Law of Torts II – Trespass to the Person (Lecture 3)

Law of Torts II – Trespass to the Person (Lecture 3)

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Law of Torts II – Trespass to the Person (Lecture 3) Three cause of action Battery Assault False Imprisonment History A form under a case had to be pleaded exactly under the form (aka a writ). o No cause of action if the case didn’t fit exactly to the writ, leading to inflexibility in the law. Was dealt with direct and forcible interference with the person land or goods of another. o Function to keep the peace against retaliation. Writs of Trespass: Key Elements to raise cause of action. A direct interference with person or property of the P. The D must be at fault so the act complained must have been done either intentionally or with lack of due care. Actionable per se. Onus of proof. o P to prove directness. o D to prove the act was not their fault. Action on the case Trespass and action on the case are two different things o Trespass is a direct action; action on the case can be consequential action. Eg: Throwing a log on the road analogy. Trespass v Negligence o A P might have alternative cause of action in trespass or in negligence. o Advantages of Trespass: Trespass is actionable per se, so a cause of action can arise for trespass even without damage. However with negligence it’s a different case. Proof of damage is needed for negligence. As soon as someone has committed an act infringing a person’s right, the P has a cause of action. Once the P proves a direct and positive act of interference the onus shifts to the defendant to prove that the act was not intended or negligent. This is a much shorter procedure for the P. The contributory negligence of the plaintiff doesn’t reduce damages on a battery action. ( Horkin V North Melbourne Football Club) . Caps don’t apply in trespass, but they do with negligence. General Elements for Trespass Directness o Hutchins v Maughan D laid baits on his property when the told P not to bring P’s dogs onto D’s land where the dogs ate the baits and died The court found that the throwing of bait was not direct, therefore no trespass. Intention (and negligence) o Trespass generally requires intent There does not need to be ill intent in an action in trespass.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Eg: If a doctor acts with good will but without consent, it still can count as battery.) o Distinguish between intent and involuntary action Eg: A takes B’s hand and hits C… A has committed a battery (since they have the intent). Onus of Proof McHale v Watson o P must prove directness. o D must prove lack of intent or negligence in trespass cases. Trespass to person Three torts of trespass to the person exist to protect a person’s right to physical integrity. o
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/27/2011 for the course FINANCE 1001 taught by Professor Profassorted during the Three '11 term at University of Adelaide.

Page1 / 6

Law of Torts II – Trespass to the Person (Lecture 3)

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online