More handpicked essays just for you.
Assignment introduction to intentional torts
Assignment introduction to intentional torts
Four defenses of intentional torts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes. Assault is an intentional or reckless act that causes someone to put in fear of immediate physical harm, e.g. pointing a gun at the claimant by the defendant, the claimant need not know if the gun is real one. Assault must be intentional, direct and immediate. Battery is the intentional or reckless application of physical force to another person. While, false imprisonment is an unlawful restriction of the claimant’s freedom of movement by the defendant. Nicole stepped on Caroline mistakenly, which was an unlawful touching. According to Elliott and Quinn there are three elements to this intentional tort; force, direct application and intent which is so in this case. However, according to Croom-Johnson LJ in the case of Wilson v Pringle “the first distinction between two causes of action where there is personal injury is the element of contact between the claimant and the defendant; that is touching of sort. In the action of negligence, the physical contact (where it takes place at all) is normally through by no means always unintended” . In the action of trespass to constitute battery, it is deliberate. Even so, it is not very intended contact, which is tortious. Apart from in acting in self-defence), there are many examples in everyday life where an i... ... middle of paper ... ...s, Tort Law, (7th edition, Pearson Education Limited 2009) S. Geoffrey, Tort: Cases and Material, (2nd Edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell 2008) LEGISLATION Family Law Reform Act 1969 The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 CASES Blake v Galloway (2004) ECWA Civ 814 Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 Cockcroft v Smith (1705) 2 Salk 642 F v West Berkshire Health Authorities (1989) 2 ALL ER 545 Faulkner v Talbot (1981) 3 ALL ER 468 Lane v Holloway [1968] 1 QB 379 Livingstone v ministry of defence (1984) NI 356, NICA R v Ireland (1998) AC 147 Robinson v Balmain ferry co (1910) Privy Council Sidaway v Board of Governor of Bethlem Royal Hospital (1985) 2 W.L.R. 480, HL Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735 Sunbolf v Alford (1838) 2 JP 136 Wilkinson v Downton (1897) 2 QB 57 Wilson v Pringle ER 440, (1986)3 WLR 1
In Billy Wilder’s 1944 blockbuster hit Double Indemnity, a fast-talking insurance salesman named Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) visits the home of the seductive Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) to renew the insurance policy on her husband’s automobiles. A romantic affair shortly ensues, and Walter is soon coerced by Phyllis into plotting a murder. Walter then comes up with an idea to receive double the amount Phyllis had previously intended, and they eventually deceive Mr. Dietrichson (Tom Powers) by making him sign a double indemnity insurance policy which in return states that the widow will receive full compensation on behalf of the bearer’s death. Mr. Dietrichson’s death is then made to look accidental; however, all does not go according to plan when Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson), a diligent insurance investigator conducts an examination of the case file. It is a tale of love and betrayal where Walter and Phyllis inevitably face the repercussions of their actions. The story transitions from the present to the past with the use of flashbacks. The voice of Walter Neff is used as a narrative style in the form of an office memorandum which is integrated throughout the film. The movie opens and ends with Walter as he tells the story of killing a man to Keyes through the Dictaphone. Billy Wilder uses money, a woman and the ability to cheat the system to denote Walter Neff’s motives to commit the perfect crime.
As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority.
Another element is occasioning. Under this element we have to prove that the battery caused the actual bodily harm. Establishing the but-for test , Cyril would not have lost his spectacles and blow out if Moby did not stick him. The bruises caused by the yin can be charged under s47 .
Assault is when the principal in the first degree, in this case Mr Emami, has caused a physical attack on or threatening to cause a physical attack towards the plaintiff, in this case Ms Ishmal. There are various types of assault in general, mainly consisting on: aggravated, common, incident and physical. But types of assault mentioned in this civil case are:
These interests are violated by the intentional torts of assault, Battery, trespass, False Imprisonment, invasion of privacy, conversion, Misrepresentation, and Fraud. The intent element of these torts is satisfied when the tortfeasor acts with the desire to bring about harmful consequences and is substantially certain that such consequences will follow. Mere reckless behavior, sometimes called willful and wanton behavior, does not rise to the level of an intentional
The Assault is defined as “where a defendant intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend the immediate unlawful violence” .
Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).
Before 1980, the court and justice system officials were reluctant to identify the rights of the accused or the victim because of lack of the consultation, information, and lack of trust in the system. The courts or legislators focused less on victim injury or condition. Victims may be subjected to insensitive questioning by the police as they have somehow at fault in the offence. Victims rarely report incident to the police due to embarrassment or questioned by the police. After the initial pain of the crime, victims can be made feel worse by the actions of criminal justice system by postponed their case or dismissed and lose wages because of time spent testifying in court. Victim may be fearful of testifying in court due to low faith in the justice system or being embarrassed by defence attorney. Victims’ suffering does not end with the offender act; they may suffer more victimization at the hands of the justice system.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
Assault occasioning grievous bodily harm which the Section 20 OAPA 1861. According to the legislation of UK government, it states, “Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any person, either with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of an offence or shall be liable… to imprisonment for not more than 5 years. “ In the definition, unlawful means that it offends the law or it is without consent or the defendant acted without lawful justification. According to the Lord Diplock in R v Mowatt, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some
suddenly jumps in front of her and drags her into an alley. The attacker strikes (A) and rips her clothes. Fortunately, (A) hits the attacker with a rock and runs to safety. The man’s actions do not amount to assault, they amount to a battery as he dragged the woman to an alley, stroke her, and ripped her clothes off with the intent of causing her harm. The acts of the woman are a measure of self-defense, and she cannot be held accountable for the infliction she may have induced to the man. If the man just followed her without having any physical contact with her, his actions would have constituted to assault, as he would inflict fear into the
The main elements of assault would be an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim. The act for assault must be overt and direct. Words alone are insufficient, however if the words are part of a threat that influences the assault. A threat alone is not an aggravated assault, although if the threat is combined with a weapon or fist- it can become sufficient enough to constitute aggravated assault.
There are three types of Tort Law; intentional, strict liability and negligence. Intentional is when a person intentionally or is involved in a situation where they have engaged in an activity that causes injury to another person. Assault is one of the very common incidents you will find under Intentional law. One case that comes to mind is the case where a family’s garage had been left open and a young man broke into the car that was in the garage. The family had set up security cameras and set out to harm the person that broke into their garage. They left their garage open on purpose several times in hope to catch the thief. One night they saw the young man on camera and the husband said to the wife “game on”. He grabbed his gun and headed
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)