Law (9084) | Torts affecting the person

Torts Affecting the Person (Law of Tort 9084)

Hello future legal expert! Welcome to one of the most exciting parts of the Law of Tort – protecting people's fundamental rights.

This chapter focuses on intentional torts, often called Trespass to the Person. Unlike negligence, where the defendant is careless, here the defendant deliberately interferes with someone’s bodily integrity or liberty. We will cover the three main intentional torts: Assault, Battery, and False Imprisonment.

Get ready to learn how the law guards against threats, unwanted physical contact, and unlawful detention. These concepts are fundamental to upholding personal freedom!

Key Concept: Actionable Per Se

This is the most important idea in this chapter. The torts affecting the person (Assault, Battery, and False Imprisonment) are Actionable Per Se.

• What does this mean? It means the claimant does not need to prove that they suffered physical damage or financial loss.

• The mere act of trespassing on their person (violating their rights) is enough to complete the tort.

Analogy: Imagine someone slaps your notebook out of your hand. In negligence, you'd sue for the broken notebook. In trespass, you sue because the act of touching you or your property (even without serious damage) was a violation of your personal rights.

1. Battery (Section 4.3.2)

Battery is the core tort protecting bodily safety. It occurs when there is the intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person.

Elements Required to Establish Liability

1. The Application of Force

The application of force must be proved. But here's the twist: the law views "force" very broadly.

• Force is minimal: Any physical contact can be battery, even a slight touch.

• Case Example: In Cole v Turner (1704), it was stated that the "least touching of another in anger is battery."

• Force includes things like spitting, using an object (like a weapon or stick), or touching someone's clothes.

2. Directness

The injury or contact must flow directly from the defendant’s act.

• Case Example: In Scott v Shepherd (1773), the defendant threw a lit squib (firework). It was thrown by two other people before it exploded near the claimant. Despite the intermediate throwers, the court held the initial act of the defendant was still direct enough to constitute battery.

3. Intention

The defendant must have intended the contact. It does not matter if they intended the resulting harm.

• If D intended to push P, but P unexpectedly broke their ankle, D is still liable for battery because the push was intentional.

• If the act was purely accidental (e.g., someone bumps you on a crowded bus), there is no battery, though there might be negligence.

Common Mistake Alert: Students often think "intentional" means intending to cause grievous injury. It just means intending the act of contact (Fowler v Lanning).

4. Relevance of Hostility

Is the contact required to be hostile? This is a point of debate.

• Generally, in everyday life, we consent implicitly to minor contacts (being brushed past in a corridor).

• The force must generally be unlawful. While Cole v Turner mentioned "anger," later cases, such as Wilson v Pringle, suggested a need for hostility, but this has been largely superseded.

• Today, the preferred test is simply whether the physical contact went beyond what is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life (Re F).

2. Assault (Section 4.3.1)

Assault is often confused with Battery, but they are separate torts!

Assault is the THREAT; Battery is the CONTACT.

Assault is committed when the defendant intentionally causes the claimant to reasonably apprehend the immediate application of unlawful force.

Elements Required to Establish Liability

1. Intention and Apprehension

The defendant must intend to cause the claimant to apprehend immediate force.

• The claimant must actually apprehend (expect or fear) the force. If the claimant is very brave and knew the defendant was joking, there is no assault.

• This apprehension must be reasonable. If the defendant makes a threat from inside a locked police cell, apprehension is probably not reasonable.

Case Example: In Stephens v Myers (1830), the defendant was restrained by others before he could reach the claimant, but because he was advancing and capable of striking the blow, it was held that the claimant had reasonably apprehended force.

2. Immediacy

The force must be feared as immediate. A threat to hurt someone next week is not assault.

3. Words and Silence

Can a threat be made without any physical movement?

• Words Alone: Historically, assault required an accompanying gesture. However, modern law accepts that words alone can constitute assault, especially if said over the phone, causing apprehension of immediate attack (R v Ireland [1998]).

• Silence: Silence, or repeated silent telephone calls, can also amount to assault if they cause the recipient to apprehend an immediate attack (R v Ireland).

4. Actions which may Negate Assault

Sometimes, words can actually prevent an action from being assault, by confirming that the force is not immediate.

• Case Example: In Tuberville v Savage (1669), the defendant placed his hand on his sword and said, "If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you." His words clearly showed he had no intention of attacking immediately (since it was assize time), thus negating the assault.

3. False Imprisonment (Section 4.3.3)

This tort protects a person's freedom of movement. False imprisonment occurs when there is the unlawful imposition of total restraint upon the claimant's freedom of movement from a place.

Like Assault and Battery, this tort is also Actionable Per Se.

Elements Required to Establish Liability

1. Total Restraint

The restraint must be total. Preventing someone from moving in a specific direction is not false imprisonment if they are free to go in another.

• Case Example: In Bird v Jones (1845), a bridge was wrongfully closed. P was prevented from walking across the bridge but was free to take an alternative route. It was held that since P's liberty was not completely restricted, there was no false imprisonment.

• The claimant must be restricted within boundaries determined by the defendant, and there must be no reasonable means of escape. If the only way to escape is dangerous (e.g., jumping from a window), the restraint is still total.

2. Knowledge of Restraint (Requirement debate)

Does the claimant have to know they are being restrained at the time?

• No, knowledge of the restraint is not strictly necessary for the tort to be committed (Meering v Grahame-White Aviation [1920]).

• However, the claimant must still be physically or psychologically restrained. If you are locked in a room while unconscious, the tort is committed, although the level of damages may reflect the lack of distress if the detention was brief.

3. Unlawful Restraint (Lawful Restraint)

If the restraint is lawful, there is no tort.

• The most common example of lawful restraint is a valid arrest by the police under statutory powers (e.g., the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – PACE).

• If a person consents to stay in a particular place, even if they later change their mind, it may not be false imprisonment. For instance, if you enter a private car park with the rule that you pay to leave, refusing to pay does not automatically make the denial of exit false imprisonment (as you consented to the terms).

4. Defences Specific to Torts Affecting the Person

Even if the claimant proves all the elements of Assault, Battery, or False Imprisonment, the defendant may still avoid liability by relying on a defence.

Consent (Section 4.3.2)

This is the most common defence. If the claimant willingly agrees to the interference, they cannot sue.

• Express Consent: Directly stating permission (e.g., signing a waiver before a boxing match).

• Implied Consent: Consent inferred from circumstances, such as everyday contact in a crowd or participation in contact sports (Condon v Basi).

• Medical Treatment: Surgeons must obtain valid consent for invasive procedures. Touching a patient without consent is battery, unless there is the defence of necessity (see below).

Did you know? Consent must be real and fully informed. If the claimant consents due to fraud or duress, the consent is invalid.

Self-Defence and Defence of Others (Section 4.3.2)

A person is entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, their property, or another person from an attack.

• Proportionality: The force used must be reasonable in the circumstances. Using a baseball bat to defend against a mild shove is likely disproportionate and the defence will fail.

• The defendant only needs to honestly believe they are facing a threat (even if that belief is mistaken), but the level of force must still be reasonable given the perceived threat.

Necessity (Section 4.3.2)

This defence applies where the defendant interferes with the claimant's person in order to prevent a greater harm, usually in emergency situations.

• This is particularly relevant in medical scenarios where a patient is unable to give consent (e.g., they are unconscious), but immediate treatment is needed to save their life or prevent serious deterioration (Re F).