The Absence of the Concept of Transferred Malice in Irish Tort Law

1887 Words8 Pages
The Absence of the Concept of Transferred Malice in Irish Tort Law

Introduction

The title of this assignment, which i propose that i shall be

revisiting for the purposes of this tort project is that: “the concept

of transferred malice is not accepted in Irish tort law”

In dealing with this topic I will inevitably be looking at what a

battery is, what is transferred malice, cases in other jurisdictions

which have accepted the concept of transferred malice in tort law,

transferred malice in crime and why it is accepted in criminal law,

and finally my arguments as to why I believe it should be adopted into

our jurisdiction.

In examining this topic it will be necessary to refer to case law of a

number of jurisdictions such as America, Australia, the UK, Northern

Ireland, and Ireland.

I look forward to revisiting this topic and examining this aspect of

law and its influences. It shall certainly be a learning process and a

challenge.

10

First of all what is a battery? A battery is a trespass against the

person, the definition we accept in this jurisdiction arose in the

case of Dullaghen v Hillen and King[1], as being

the direct application of physical force upon

the person of another without his consent.

There are five required elements to constitute a battery having been

committed. These are

1. a voluntary act by the defendant

2. physical contact or impact to the plaintiff

3. intention or negligence on behalf of the defendant

4. causation

5. no consent.

An attack on him is an obvious example[2]. A tort of battery may be

committed by spitting in his face[3], by overturning a chair he is

sitting on[4], or striking a horse so that it throws him[5]. In

Humphries v Connor[6] the Court of the Queens Bench was agreed that

    More about The Absence of the Concept of Transferred Malice in Irish Tort Law

      Open Document