LW 2103 Law of TortLW 2103 Law of Tort

• Fact

• Issue

• Rules

• Application

• Conclusion

FactFact

• 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

IssueIssue

• 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?

RulesRules

• Both assault and battery– An act must be direct and intentional– Proof of damage is not required

RulesRules

• 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

RulesRules

• “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

RulesRules

• 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

RulesRules

• 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

RulesRules

• 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.

RulesRules

• 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 co

ntacts irrespective of whether there is any physical harm or insult

RulesRules

• Battery requires some positive act, as opposed to a mere omission, resulting in actual physical contact with the plaintiff’s body

RulesRules

• 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

RulesRules

• 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.

RulesRules

• 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….

RulesRules

• 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.

ApplicationApplication

• Prima facie– Hugo has committed assault to Tim, and– Committed battery to Claudia

ApplicationApplication

• In Tim’s situation– The defendant, Hugo, actually attempts to stri

ke the plaintiff but fails– Similar to the case of I de s et ux v W de s (13

48), the defendant was liable to assault even though the attack missed

ApplicationApplication

• The case of Turberville v Savage may not be applied– What the defendant did was actually hit Tim, n

ot through threatening words

ApplicationApplication

• In Claudia’s situation

• Hugo did use direct and intentional application of force by the defendant to the person of the plaintiff

ConclusionConclusion

• From prima facie evidence– Tim can sue Hugo on the ground of assault– Claudia can sue Hugo on the ground of

battery