(6) Intentional Torts

(6) Intentional Torts - 1. BATTERY X can sue Y for battery....

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. BATTERY X can sue Y for battery. BATTERY IS A (a) DIRECT AND (b) INTENTIONAL ACT BY D WHICH CAUSES SOME (c) FORCE , or UNDESIRED PHYSICAL CONTACT, WITH THE BODY OF ANOTHER PERSON. (a) Direct Y’s _________ is direct because there was no lapse of time or voluntary intervention between the act and the battery. SCOTT V SHEPHERD Y’s ________ is direct because even though ___________, __________ was a involuntary intervention and an involuntary intervention will not prevent a thing being a battery. SCOTT V SHEPHERD (b) Intentional The act need only be intentional as to the conduct; intention to bring about the harmful consequence is not required. So since _________ , Y’s ___________ was intentional because it was a voluntary act by Y intended to bring about the contact with X. WILSON V PRINGLE Hostility on the part of Y is not required. Although the case of WILSON V PRINGLE suggested that hostility was required it was subsequently rejected by T V T and Re F . Therefore Y’s lack of hostility,_______________, does not preclude X’s claim in battery. (c) Force The key requirement is that if X touches Y against Y’s will, it will be actionable even if minimal force is involved. No damage is necessary because trespass is actionable per se. Minimal force is required for X’s claim to succeed and it is evident that Y’s _____ fulfills this requirement of minimal force. Cole v. Turner . Minimal force is required for X’s claim to succeed, Cole v. Turner , and Y’s ________ does not constitute minimal force. In KAYE V ROBERTSON it was even accepted that flashlight photography could be a battery if there was damage to the plaintiff’s eye from the bright light. The court ignored the fact that battery did not require damage. Nonetheless, the suggestion in the judgement that there would have to be damage lessens its impact. Ultimately, the court rejected the idea that flashlight photography could be battery. Therefore Y’s __________ cannot amount to battery. Y photographing X cannot amount to assault either. Murray v. Ministry of Defence
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Therefore it appears X can bring a successful action against Y in battery because the requirements of a direct and intention act are fulfilled. However Y can bring up the defence of _________ to defeat X’s claim. 2. ASSAULT X can sue Y for assault. ASSAULT IS ANY ACT OF D WHICH (a) DIRECTLY AND (b) INTENTIONALLY CAUSES P REASONABLY TO APPREHEND AN IMMINENT BATTERY. (a) Direct Y’s threat must be direct and caused by active conduct , STEPHENS V MYERS, a TOTALLY passive conduct cannot constitute assault. INNES V WYLIE . Y has fulfilled this requirement because Y’s ________ was direct and _______ constitutes active conduct. Y’s words may certainly negative his threatening action.
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 02/07/2012 for the course LGST 101 taught by Professor Hsu during the Spring '11 term at Singapore Management.

Page1 / 10

(6) Intentional Torts - 1. BATTERY X can sue Y for battery....

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