LW 2103 Law of Tort

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