Tresspass To Person LLB 1st Year Law of Tort

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Tresspass to person - LLB 1st year law of tort
LLB (Chaudhary Charan Singh University)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Trespass to person is a tort which is

frequently committed in everyday
life. It is basically unreasonable
interference with body of a person
which can be committed either by
causing actual harm or by just
causing an apprehension of force....
Critical Analysis on The Concept of

Trespass To Person

frequently committed in everyday
life. It is basically unreasonable
interference with body of a person
which can be committed either by
causing actual harm or by just
causing an apprehension of force.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
The tort of trespass to person has

developed as it is today is a result of
many changes and modifications. In
early English law, a physical
interference with the person was
given special protection, partly to
avoid the unhappy consequences of
people taking the law into their own
hands by revenge attacks. Untill the
abolition of the old forms of action in
the 19th century; direct attacks upon
the person were protected by the
action of trespass, which required no
proof of damage. Indirect
interference with the person was
protected by the action on the case,
which did require proof of damage.
Today, the basic position is that direct

and intentional acts of interference

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
are still dealt with by the tort of

trespass, while indirect and
unintentional acts fall under the tort
of negligence. However, the situation
is more complex than this suggests
and some authorities suggest that
even in trespass the claimant must
now establish intention or negligence
in addition to the act of interference.
This appears to suggest that there is a

form of negligent trespass, which is
almost a contradiction in terms.
Trespass To Person:
Definition:
Interference, however slight with a
person’s elementary civil right to

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
security of person, and self-

determination in relation to his own
body, constitutes trespass to person.
Trespass may be done intentionally,
deliberately or negligently. The
fundamental principle plain and
incontestable law is that every
person’s body is inviolate.
Trespass to person may be

categorised as:
1. Assault, which is "any act of such a
nature as to excite an apprehension
of battery";
2. Battery, " intentional and
unpermitted contact with the
plaintiff's person or anything
attached to it and practically
identified with it";and

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
3. False imprisonment, the "unlawful

obstruction or deprivation of
freedom from restraint of
movement."
Thus, it can be summarized that any

unreasonable interference with a
person without any lawful
justification amounts to trespass to
person. The basic idea behind
trespass to person is that every
person’s body is inviolate.
Relevance Of Intention In Trespass

To Person:
Under the old law, whenever injury
was caused to another by a person by
direct and immediate application of
force, the plaintiff could sue the

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
defendant in trespass to person,

without alleging negligence, whereas
if the injury was only consequential
he had to sue in case.
But now instead of dividing the action

for personal injuries into trespass
(direct damage) or case
(consequential damage) the cause of
action itself is divided. The thing
which is now taken into account is
whether the act of trespass was done
intentionally or unintentionally.
Thus a person in order to establish a

suit for trespass to person need to
proof just one thing whether there
was an intention to commit the
trespass or not.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
LORD DENNING in LETANG V.

COOPER has recognized the
relevance of intention in trespass to
person.
Facts
Mr. Cooper (the defendant)
negligently ran over Mrs Letang (the
plaintiff) in his car while she was
sunbathing on a piece of grass where
cars were parked. The plaintiff filed a
claim in trespass to the person,
because the claim in Negligence was
time-barred. Trespass to the person
is a tort involving wrongful direct
interference with another person and
traditionally included both
intentional and negligent acts.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Judgment
The Court of Appeal, consisting of
Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ and
Danckwerts LJ, held unanimously
that since Mr. Cooper's actions were
negligent rather than intentional, the
statute of limitations barring claims
actions for damage caused by
negligence applied. Mr. Letang could
not recover her damages because her
claim was late.
Effect
The effect of this case was that an
action for trespass to the person can
now only be brought for intentional
torts, such as assault, battery, false
imprisonment, trespass to land or
chattels, etc. A claimant wishing to

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
recover damages to his person or

property that were caused by the
defendant's negligent action must
prove all the elements of the tort of
negligence.
Essentials Of Trespass To Person:

Intention:
An act does not constitute trespass to
person unless it is done with
intention. Thus intention is the chief
criteria for trespass to person.
If there is an intention behind

committing a trespass then it is
actionable per se and the plaintiff
need not proof any specific or
particular damage.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
In negligent commission of trespass

to person, plaintiff need to proof that
injuries so complaint of are
reasonably foreseeable. In case of
direct trespass or intentional trespass
proof of actual damage is not
necessary but in negligent torts,
proof of damage becomes essential.
Note:
Ÿ Trespass On A Case:
It is actionable per se.:
Ÿ Trespass Upon A Case:

They are consequential, indirect and
unintentional.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Types Of Trespass To Person:

Trespass to person is constituted
basically in three different ways:
(1) Assault
(2) Battery
(3) False Imprisonment
They have been discussed as:

(1) ASSAULT: The act of putting
another person in reasonable fear or
apprehension of an immediate
battery by means of an act amounting
to an attempt or threat to commit a
battery amounts to an actionable tort
of assault.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Probably mere words don’t constitute

an assault ; However insulting or
menacing; the intent to do violence
must be expressed in threatening acts
, and not merely in the speech.
The apprehension must be genuine .

If there is no reasonable fear there is
no assault. For example when a gun is
pointed behind his back, then no
apprehension lies in this case. Thus,
the plaintiff must have the reason to
believe that the defendant has
capacity to carry out the threat in
near future.
Threats on telephone may be an

assault provided the plaintiff has
reason to believe that they may be

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
carried out in the sufficiently near

future. Malicious silent telephone
calls also amount to assault.
Thus, no physical contact is essential

for committing the tort of assault. It’s
essence is conduct which leads the
plaintiff to apprehend the application
of force.
Essentials of Assault:
1. Intent
2. Apparent ability to carry it our
3. Apprehension
4. Knowledge of threat

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
The above essentials have been

explained through the following
cases.
Stephen v. Myers:
In Stephen v Myers (1830), the
Claimant was a chairman at a
meeting sat at a table where the
Defendant was sat. There were six or
seven people between the Claimant
and Defendant. The Defendant was
disruptive and a motion was passed
that he should leave the room. The
Defendant said he would rather pull
the chairman out of his chair and
immediately advanced with his fist
clenched towards the Claimant but
was stopped by the man sat next to
the chairman. It seemed that his

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
intention was to hit the Claimant. The

Defendant argued that there was no
assault as he had no power to carry
out his threat as there were people in
between. The court said that not
every threat is an assault. There
needs to be a means of carrying that
threat into effect: it must a realistic
threat of personal violence . The
judge directed the jury (as juries were
still in use at the time) that if the
Defendant could have reached the
chairman and hit him there was an
assault. But if the Defendant did not
have the intention of hitting the
Claimant, or it was not realistic that
he could reach the Claimant, then
there is no assault. The jury found for
the Claimant.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Read v. Coker:
In Read v Coker (1853) the Claimant
was told to leave the premises where
he conducted his business. He
refused and the Defendant collected
some workmen who stood near the
Claimant with their sleeves rolled up
and told him that they would not
break his neck if he didn't leave. He
did leave and later brought a
successful claim for assault as there
was a threat of violence and the
means to carry it out. However, not
every conditional threat will be an
assault.
Indian Case:
Bavisetti Venkat Surya Rao v.
Nandipati Muthayya:

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
In this case, the plaintiff, a well to do

agriculturist, was in arrears of land
revenue. The village music , who had
duty to collect amount , went to the
plaintiff’s residence for the collection
of the amount. On demand being
made the plaintiff pleaded his
inability to pay the amount that as the
wife had locked the house and gone
out for a few days. The defendant
insisted to have the payment the very
day, that being the last day of the year
for collection of the revenue the
plaintiff was told that on his failure to
pay , his movable property will be
distained. Since the plaintiff’s house
was locked and no other movables
were readily available, the defendant
told him that the earnings which the
plaintiff was wearing would be

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
distained. The village gold smith was

called. On the arrival of the gold
smith , one of the persons present
there paid off the amount due from
the plaintiff by borrowing the same
from another person. The defendants
than went away quietly. The plaintiff
sued the village music stating that
apart from other wrongs the
defendant had committed assault.
Judgment: It was held that since the

defendants, after the arrival of the
gold smith said nothing and did
nothing and the threat of use of force
by the gold smith to the plaintiff was
too remote a possibility to have put
the plaintiff in fear of immediate or
instant violence. There was no
assault.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
(2) Battery: The application of force

to the person of another without
lawful justification amounts to
battery.
1. Battery constitutes to bring any

material object into contact with
another person. (intentionally).
Example to throw water or spit on
somebody.
2. To take something forcibly from
another person.
3. To project heat, light ,noise or
vapours onto another person so as to
cause physical injury or personal
discomfort.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Essentials Of Battery
1. There should be a physical touch
(directly or indirectly) .
2. Intention must be present.
3. The physical contact must be
without lawful justification.
4. Use of force
5. Battery must be voluntary.
Test Of Battery:
Whether the physical contact so
persisted in circumstances gone
beyond generally accepted standard
of conduct.
Exception To Battery:

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Defences available to Jostler,

backslapper, and the hand shaker.
Cases On Battery:
Fagan v. Metropolitan Police
Commissioner:
In Fagan v Metropolitan Police
Commissioner [1969], a criminal
case, Fagan was asked by an officer to
park his car. He didn't realize that the
car had rolled onto the police officers
foot at which point he was asked to
move the car. He responded with
verbal abuse and turned off the
engine before complying with the
request. The majority of the Court of
Appeal held that there was a
continuing positive act starting from
when he moved the car to when he

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
turned it off and as such there was a

battery. Whereas Bridge J dissented
saying it was an omission as he
parked on the foot accidentally (and
thus there was no intent at that stage)
and then simply omitted to move the
car, and so there was no battery.
Wilson v. Pringle:
The Claimant and Defendant were
both schoolboys involved in an
incident in a school corridor which
resulted in the Claimant falling and
being injured. The Defendant argued
that there was no battery as this
involves deliberate touching with
hostility and the intent to inflict
injury and horseplay did not involve
such intent. The Claimant argued that

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
there merely had to be an intentional

touching. The court held that battery
involved an intentional touching with
hostility, but no intent to cause
injury. The court considered whether
a better test would be implied consent
or a test based on how common the
actions are in daily life. These will be
useful considerations but ultimately
the touching must be 'hostile'.
Indian Case:
Pratap Daji V. B.B. And C.I. Ryl.
The plaintiff entered a carriage on the
defendant’s railway but by oversight
failed to purchase a ticket for his
travel. At an intermediate station he
asked for the ticket but the same was
refused, at another place, he was

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
asked to get out of the carriage since

he didn’t have a ticket. On his refusal
to get out, force was used to make
him get out of the carriage. In an
action by him for his forcible
removal, it was held that the use of
force was justified as he, being
without a ticket was a trespasser. The
defendants were therefore, not liable.
(3) False Imprisonment: A false

imprisonment is complete
deprivation of liberty for any time,
however short, without lawful
excuse.
Exception:

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
A mere partial interference with

freedom of locomotion doesn’t
amount to imprisonment.
Essentials Of False Imprisonment:

1. The total restraint of the liberty of a
person.
2. The detention must be unlawful
Note
1. Use of physical force is not
important in false imprisonment.
2. Knowledge of plaintiff is not

necessary.
Drunk, asleep or lunatic can also be
imprisoned falsely .Lord Atkin has

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
stated that in all such cases damages

will be reduced and such award of
damages may be affected on whether
the plaintiff is conscious about it.
Cases On Trespass:
Bird v. Jones:
In Bird v Jones (1845), the
Defendant's employer had
appropriated part of Hammersmith
Bridge to watch a race on the river.
The Claimant tried to pass through
the appropriated part and managed
to enter the enclosure. The Defendant
put two police officers to block his
path and prevent him from entering
further into the enclosure. He was
told that he could go back but not
forward. After half an hour the

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Claimant tried to push past

whereupon he committed an assault
on the Defendant and was arrested.
The court said that it is false
imprisonment for a person to be
forced to stay in a place just as much
as locking them in a room. There
need not be any touching either.
However, it cannot be an false
imprisonment to prevent a person
from going forward but allowing
them to return the way they came,
even if it is unlawful to stop them.
The person no doubt suffers a wrong
but not false imprisonment possibly
assault or battery if he is threatened
or touched as he tries to get past.
"Imprisonment is a total restraint of
the liberty of the person, for however
short a time and not a partial

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
obstruction of his will, whatever

inconvenience it may bring him."
Meering v. Graham:
Meering was held in a room and
questioned, because his employer
though him to be a thief. It was a false
imprisonment and he go got more
money because he knew he was being
kept there
False imprisonment.
He got more money because he knew
he was being kept there.
False imprisonment:

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
- if they know that they are held they

get more money as if they were
unaware
- they can sue even if they were
drunk, unconscious, asleep.
Defenses To Trespass To Person:

1. Consent Of Plaintiff
2. Contributory Negligence
3. Self-Defence
4. Prevention Of Trespass
5. Parental Authority
6. Statutory Authority
7. Necessity
8. Inevitable Accident
9. Preservation Of Public Peace

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Ÿ Consent Of The Plaintiff

If the claimant consented either
expressly or impliedly to the torts of
assault and battery, there will be a
complete defense.
However it is unclear whether

consent is a true defense or whether
it is for the claimant to prove lack of
consent in order to succeed in the
first place as was decided in freeman
v. home office.
Facts And Judgment:

A prisoner serving a life term claimed
that psychoactive drugs were
administered forcibly to him by

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
officials; further, that even if he had

consented, his consent was not legally
adequate because he was not told the
nature of the treatment or the risks
involved. The court rejected the claim
of coercion and ruled that the
plaintiff had consented to the
administration of drugs, since he had
been informed in broad terms of the
purpose of the treatment
The patient who consents to receiving

medical treatment is consenting to
the torts of assault and battery a d
possibly false imprisonment in some
cases. This is not the same as
consenting to a negligent treatment.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Patients who are about to undergo

surgery are asked to sign a standard
consent form. Patients who go to the
doctor or attend hospital for
treatments other tan surgery, for
example, for treatment with
medicines or various forms of
therapy are taken to have given
implied consent merely by consulting
the doctor.
There are two possible claims

available to patients who allege that
they have been treated without
consent:
1. If a doctor treats patients against
their will or by giving a different
treatment to that for which consent
has been given, he or she commit’s

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
the torts of assault and battery. It is

only in very limited circumstances
that these tort claims are available.
Thus, if a patient refuses treatment
which doctors consider necessary, it
has become the practice to seek the
advice of the court.
Thus in order for consent to be real,

the patient must be broadly aware of
the type
Of treatment and when and where it

will be given freely, without duress or
misrepresentation as to nature of the
treatment..

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
In Appleton v. garrett in which a

dentist carried out extensive and
unnecessary treatment.
If the case is one in which the patient

has been made aware of the type of
treatment but the doctor has failed to
give a sufficient detail of the risks
involved, the patient would only have
a remedy in negligence.
Ÿ Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is generally
assumed to be a defense for trespass
to person but there is authority the
other way.
Ÿ Self Defence

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
It is lawful for any person to use a

reasonable degree of force for the
protection of himself or any other
person against any unlawful use of
force. The key to successful defense
of self-defence is the element of
reasonableness, as the defence will
operate if the force used by the
defendant is proportionate to that
being applied by an attacker.
Force is not reasonable if it is either

Ÿ Unnecessary- i.e. Greater than is
requisite for the purpose.
Ÿ Disproportionate to the evil to be
prevented.
The relationship of parties may be
relevant to the reasonableness of
force used.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
In revill v. newbury, it was held that

the firing of a shot through a hole in a
door in the direction of a trespasser,
causing serious injury, was excessive
force and the defence of self- defence
could not apply.
The defence is probably limited to

situations in which the defendant
reasonably believes that an attack is
likely.
Bici v Ministry of Defence (2004)

Three British soldiers in Kosovo shot
two men and wounded two others
traveling together in a car. The

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Ministry of Defence was vicariously

liable as the soldiers' employer.
Baci and Baci brought claims in

trespass to the Person and
negligence, while the soldiers defence
was self-defence.
In the case of trespass to the Person,

the court held that even though the
soldiers had managed to shoot a man
they were not aiming at, it was a case
of transferred intent and that battery
had been committed. The claim for
assault on the other men failed
because in the eyes of the court there
had been no actual intent to make the
rest of the party fear for their lives(!).
They had missed their target (the

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
man carrying the gun) and shot

someone else, but not intentionally.
Ÿ Prevention Of Trespass
It is unlawful for any occupier of
land, or for any other person with the
authority of the occupier, to use a
reasonable degree of force in order to
prevent a trespasser from entering or
to control his movements or to eject
him after entry.
This right of using force against a

trespasser is available only to the
occupier of the land or his authorized
agent.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
In April, 2003, Tony martin, a

landowner who shot and killed a
burglar who was trespassing on his
property was convicted of murder a d
sentenced to life imprisonment.
Ÿ Parentel Authority And Other

Authority
A parent is not guilty of an assault if
he physically interferes with his child
by way of reasonable restraint or
chastisement, or for therapeutic
reasons-e.g. to take a blood test.
There are special cases which pose

particular problems in relation to
consent to medical treatment. The
case of children under age 16 years
don’t have sufficient maturity and

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
understanding to take decisions

relating to medical treatment or, any
other things beneficial for them. If
the child lacks such understanding,
the parents may be asked It to
provide the consent on behalf of the
child, but the court has jurisdiction in
some cases to give or refuse consent
on behalf of the child.
In a particular case the court decided

that immunization is parents’ right
considering the scientific evidence
and risk.
Ÿ Statutory Authority
Apart from the statutory powers of
arrest, parliament has authorized
medical examinations or tests which

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
would otherwise constitute a serious

battery. E.g. Breath tests under the
road traffic act 1988, section 6, or
blood test under sections 20 and 23 of
the family law reforms act 1969.
The two things to be taken into

consideration :
Consent to the taking of bodily

samples from detainees
A number of procedures carried out
at police stations to assist criminal
investigations can only be undertaken
with the consent of the suspect or the
permission of a senior officer , at
least the rank of superintendent.
Intimate samples, such swabs from
bodily orifices may only be taken with

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
the permission in writing, of suspect.

Non intimate samples , such as finger
nail scrapings can only be taken after
the suspect has given written
permission
As long as the correct procedures are

followed , there will be a defence to
an action brought against the police
for assault and battery , and the strict
rules concerning written consent are
important safeguards for suspects.
Wrongful arrest , detention and stop

and search
Lawful arrest doesn’t amount to false
imprisonment whether it is a citizen’s
arrest or is carried out by a police
officer. Under section1 of PACE 1984 ,

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
the police have a power to stop and

search persons whom they
reasonably suspect may be carrying
stolen or prohibited articles. Such a
power to stop people in the street in
full view of the public is regarded as a
serious infringement of personnel
freedom is seen by many as being
unjustifiable.
In Murray vs. ministry of defence it

has been explained as what
constitutes a lawful arrest.
Thus requirements of arrest includes:

Ÿ An arrest made within the powers
granted by statute and common law.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Ÿ A reasonable suspicion on the part

of the person making the arrest. This
requirement is also present in case of
search and stop
Ÿ Force which is used must be in
proportion to the amount of force
exerted by the suspect.
People may only be kept in custody

during the investigation of crimes
according to the conditions and time
limits laid down in the legislation,
until such time as it is possible to
charge them. If there is not enough
evidence to charge the suspect when
regular custody reviews are made,
and it is unlikely that further
questioning will lead to a charge, the
custody officer must order the

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
suspect to be released. If a person is

charged with an offence, he or she
must be brought a court as soon as
possible and will be remanded in
custody or on bail, or, alternatively
may be released on police bail.
If excessive force is used in making

an arrest , even if the arrest itself is
lawful in that it complies with
common law or provisions of PACE
1984, there will be grounds for a
claim of assault, battery or false
imprisonment.
Farell vs. secretary of state for

defence

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
The reasonability of force in a

question of fact . This particular fact
has been explained in this case.
Ÿ Necessity
Necessity could also amount to

defence to a claim for false
imprisonment. The test for deciding
whether measures falling short of
arrest could lawfully be taken against
individuals was whether there was a
reasonable suspicion that that
individual was presenting a
particular threats. The burden of
proof was on the claimant to show
that the exercise of discretion to
detain was unreasonable.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Fayed vs. metropolitan police

commissioner
The claimant’s detention didn’t
amount to a deprivation of liberty
within article 5(1) but in this instance
it would be justified under article
5(1)© because the detention was
imposed with the purpose of
arresting people whom it would be
lawful an practicable police to
consider that everyone in the cordon ,
including the claimants , were
demonstrators and might be about to
commit a breach of the peace. The
claimants had been falsely
imprisoned, but that measure that
had been necessary for the protection
of everyone involved , in order to
contain the crowd until safe dispersal
could be arranged. Although the

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
claimants were vindicated in part,

judgment was entered for
defendants.
Ÿ Inevitable Accident
Inevitable accident provides a good
excuse for a prima facie trespass
which is otherwise actionable. An
inevitable accident has been defined
as an event over which the defendant
had no control and the effects of
which could not have been avoided by
the exercise of the greatest care and
skill. This may be said to be the
generally accepted view since Stanley
v. Powell
In this case the defendant while firing

at a pheasant accidentally and

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
without negligence shot the plaintiff,

who was employed to carry cartridges
for a shooting party, with a pellet
which ricocheted from a tree at a
considerable angle. This case might
have been decided on the ground that
the plaintiff had voluntary accepted
the risk by joining the party. But it
was held that even if the action was in
trespass, not case, the injury being
accidental the defendant could not be
liable.
Ÿ Preservation Of Public Peace

A person who disturbs public
worship or a public meeting or a
lawful game may be lawfully
removed. Here the force used
shouldn’t be more than what is

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
necessary. Every citizen in whose

presence a breach of peace is being or
reasonably appears to be about to be
committed has the right to take
reasonable steps to make the person
who is breaking or threatening to
break the peace refrain from doing
so; and those steps in appropriate
cases will include detaining him
against his will.
Remedies:
Damages:
The usual remedies sought for
trespass to the person is damages,
and as has seen there may be an
award of aggravated and exemplary
damages in an appropriate case.
Justification for an assault, a person

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
is liable for the direct consequences

flowing from the wrongful injury
caused. When the assault has been
carried to the extent of maiming or
crippling or of wounding a person,
damages will be greater than those
awarded for a mere assault or
battery.
In the case of a joint assault, the true

criterion of damages is the whole
injury which the plaintiff has
sustained from the joint act of
trespass.
Lord delving while dealing with a

case of false imprisonment has
observed that the court is not in this
category of case confined to awarding

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
compensation for loss of liberty and

for physical and mental distress as it
thinks may have been caused. It is
also proper for it to make any
departure from constitutional
practice, even only a slight one, by
exemplary damages.
The more highhanded and less

reasonable the detention is the larger
may be the damages; and conversely
the more nearly reasonably the
difference may have acted, the
smaller will be the proper
assessment. The assessment will
include compensation for indignity,
mental suffering, disgrace, and loss
of social status and reputation.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Self-Help:
It is also a very important remedy
available in the case of trespass to
person. For example, a person who
has been falsely imprisoned may
escape, and someone who has been
falsely imprisoned may escape, and
someone who has been unlawfully
arrested may resist arrest by use of
reasonable force.
Habeas Corpus:
The ancient prerogative remedy of
habeas corpus is theoretically
available for false imprisonment,
though this is remedy sought today.
This would mean an application to
the divisional court for an order to
release the person unlawfully

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
detained, and is only sought in

emergency cases.
Conclusion:
Trespass to person is a general tort
which is faced in our day to day life.
People suffer a lot of difficulties
because of this acts but due to
unawareness they don’t file suits of
trespass to person even though when
a suffer harm due to this
interferences. In fact, in Indian
society people are so much unaware
of their rights that they go on facing
problems without protesting. In
contrast to these the American
society is so litigant society that
people file suits even for minor
trespass cases also. Since the body of

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
every person is inviolate any person

don’t has the right to interfere with
the body of an individual either
directly or indirectly.
In this project an attempt has been

made to cover almost each and every
aspect related to trespass to person.
Every concept has been elaborately
explained so that there does not
remain a single doubt related to
Trespass to person. Special emphasis
has been given on the defenses to the
trespass to person. Further the most
important thing I.e. the relevance of
intention has also been explained in
this case.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121

sometimes confused with other torts
like Negligence. So in this case it
becomes essential to file a right suit
to get a right remedy.
Moreover, the defenses to trespass to

person is even a more important
concept. In Concerning these
difficulties certain defenses has been
provided under the tort of nuisance
which provides immunity to the
tortfeasors and to carry out their
work smoothly. In everyday life there
arises situations when a little bit of
physical contact should be tolerated
e.g. in a crowd if a person is pushed
by another person or while traveling
in a bus due to rush a person is
pushed all this contact will not

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
amount to trespass to person.

Further tort for personal injuries
resulting from a medical negligence is
not a case of trespass to person. It is
assumed that in all physical contact
generally acceptable in the ordinary
conduct of everyday life there exists
implied consent. If the contact or
interference complained of do not
cover the exigencies of everyday life
then only a case of trespass will lie
where the excuse is to be established
by the defendant. E.g. when a person
is injured and he requires immediate
medical treatment then providing
him the medical facilities will not
amount to trespass to person.
Thus, it is very necessary to

understand the difference between

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
the situations where an act may

amount to trespass or where it may
not. Through this way only we will be
able to exercise our rights and duties.
Thus, knowledge about trespass and

its defenses is one of the important
concept knowledge of which will be
fruitful for the individuals as well as
for the society.
Keeping these facts in mind this

project is an attempt to explain the
various concepts related to trespass
to person and its defenses has been
explained so that the concept will
help people to exercise their rights
and duties.

lOMoARcPSD|8026121
Referred Cases:
(1) fowler v. lanning
(2) latting v. cooper
(3) Wilson v. pringle
(4) Fagan v. metropolitan police
commissioner
(5) Stephens v. Myers
(6) read v. Coker
(7) metering v. Grahame
(8) birds v. Jones
(9) Murray v. ministry of defense
(10) lane v. Holloway

Tresspass To Person LLB 1st Year Law of Tort

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tresspass To Person LLB 1st Year Law of Tort

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tresspass To Person LLB 1st Year Law of Tort

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|8026121

Tresspass to person - LLB 1st year law of tort

LLB (Chaudhary Charan Singh University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Trespass to person is a tort which is

Critical Analysis on The Concept of

Trespass to person is a tort which is

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

The tort of trespass to person has

Today, the basic position is that direct

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

are still dealt with by the tort of

This appears to suggest that there is a

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

security of person, and self-

Trespass to person may be

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

3. False imprisonment, the "unlawful

Thus, it can be summarized that any

Relevance Of Intention In Trespass

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

defendant in trespass to person,

But now instead of dividing the action

Thus a person in order to establish a

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

LORD DENNING in LETANG V.

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

recover damages to his person or

Essentials Of Trespass To Person:

If there is an intention behind

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

In negligent commission of trespass

Ÿ Trespass Upon A Case:

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

Types Of Trespass To Person:

They have been discussed as:

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

Probably mere words don’t constitute

The apprehension must be genuine .

Threats on telephone may be an

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

carried out in the sufficiently near

Thus, no physical contact is essential

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

The above essentials have been

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

intention was to hit the Claimant. The

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

In this case, the plaintiff, a well to do

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

distained. The village gold smith was

Judgment: It was held that since the

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])

(2) Battery: The application of force

1. Battery constitutes to bring any

Downloaded by Natukunda Dean ([email protected])