This document summarizes three torts related to trespass to the person: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Assault involves threatening or attempting violence against another, while battery involves intentional unwanted physical contact. False imprisonment involves unlawfully restricting another's freedom of movement. Each tort has specific elements that must be met, such as the threat of immediate violence for assault or intentional physical contact for battery.
This document summarizes three torts related to trespass to the person: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Assault involves threatening or attempting violence against another, while battery involves intentional unwanted physical contact. False imprisonment involves unlawfully restricting another's freedom of movement. Each tort has specific elements that must be met, such as the threat of immediate violence for assault or intentional physical contact for battery.
Original Description:
Law of Torts (Trespass to Person)
Assault
Battery
False Imprisonment
This document summarizes three torts related to trespass to the person: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Assault involves threatening or attempting violence against another, while battery involves intentional unwanted physical contact. False imprisonment involves unlawfully restricting another's freedom of movement. Each tort has specific elements that must be met, such as the threat of immediate violence for assault or intentional physical contact for battery.
This document summarizes three torts related to trespass to the person: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Assault involves threatening or attempting violence against another, while battery involves intentional unwanted physical contact. False imprisonment involves unlawfully restricting another's freedom of movement. Each tort has specific elements that must be met, such as the threat of immediate violence for assault or intentional physical contact for battery.
It is an intentional act that causes another person
reasonably to apprehend immediate violence to their person.
It is a direct and intentional application of
force to another person without that person's consent.
Essentials:
Essentials:
There must be a threat of immediate violence. If
the threat of violence is not immediate, there is no assault.
The physical contact must be unwanted by the
plaintiff.
Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers (1985)
The defendant must be able to carry out the threat. If the defendant cannot do so, the threat of violence is no immediate and therefore, it would not amount to assault. Stephens v Myers (1830) Even if the threat of voilence is prevented or thwarted, there can still be an assault. As long as the act of the defendant causes a reasonable appprehension of fear of immediate violence, there is an assault. Even if the act of the defendant is not threatening, it can still amount to assault if it is accompanied by threatening words. Eg; showing a knife to another person and saying Your money or your life. Words alone may be an assault. Eg; saying I'll kill you. At the same time, words may negate an act from becoming an assault. Turbeville v Savage (1669) ''If it were not assize time, Iwould not take such language from you.'' The intention to actually use the threatened violence is not a requirement. As long as the defendant had the intention to cause fear to the plaintiff, his acts can be assault. Eg; Pointing a fake gun to another person.
'Force' does not mean violent force. Any
physical contact with the claimant's body, or clothing being worn at the time is considered as force. Nash v Sheen (1953) B v An NHS Hospital Trust (2002), (mentioned in R v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall 'an unwanted kiss may be battery', facts of the case are not entirely relevent.) There is no requirement of violence. There is no requirement of injury to the claimant. The defendant must have intended to cause the physical contact. If the act is not intentional, it is not a battery Letang v Cooper (1965) It does not matter if the claimant is not the intended ''target' Livingstone v Minister of Defence (1984)
TORT LAW TRESSPASS TO THE PERSON
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
It is the unlawful prevention of another from
exercising their freedom of movement. 'False' means 'wrongful'. Essentials: The tort is not limited to actually locking someone away. Completely depriving someone of their freedom of movement is enough even if it is for a very short time. The defendant must have prevented the claimant from moving in any direction or there must not be any means of escape Bird v Jones (1845) If there are other means of escape but unreasonable, it is still false imprisonment. The false imprisonment must be caused by a direct and positive act Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958) The claimant need not know that he was being imprisoned at the time Meering v GrahameWhite Aviation Co. Ltd (1920) However, where a person was completely unaware of being detained, and suffered no actual harm from it, only nominal damages would normally be awarded. - Murray v Ministry of Defence (1988)
Do The Changes Brought About by The Land Registration Act 2002, With Particular Focus On Adverse Possession, Do Enough To Protect Purchasers From Overriding Interests