Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The law of tort 1
INTRODUCTION The main purpose of this Essay is to advise the parties as to any potential liability in tort and under the protection from Harassment Act 1997, also to find out the particulars of the case and list the points that are necessary in order for someone be found guilty. In Caroline and Nicole, A minor must be responsible for his or her own torts. However the issue here is whether Nicole’s actions amounted to a battery? Battery: To make a claim, Caroline must establish that Nicole intentionally caused an offensive contact with her. However in (Garratt v. Dailey), Nicole may not be liable for battery because the element of intent is not satisfied as she did not intent to step on Caroline’s foot. On the other hand, Caroline can argue that although the accident was unknown but Nicole failure to rectify the situation has rendered it a battery (See: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner) and Nicole did not consent her as she was a minor (Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority). SIMON AND CAROLINE Could Caroline action amount a battery? Battery: To prove tort of battery; Simon must establish that Caroline, Intentionally caused an offensive contact with him, that the force was direct and immediate, and the touching or contact was hostile. INTENT: Caroline may not have intended to hit Simon with her shoe, although Even if her intention was not to hit Simon the shoe, Caroline may nevertheless have intended a harmful or offensive touching (see Scott v Shepherd). Caroline action alone of not taking a reasonable care of throwing the shoe was foreseeable, as there was possibility that if the shoe did not hit Nicole it would hit somebody (Corn V. Shepard). This is adequate to constitute intent. The f... ... middle of paper ... ... use public telecommunications system for the purpose of needless anxiety or causing shock to another. Whether the fact that Shazza Conduct could cause physical harm or mental distress to Louis? It is likely that Louis will have an actionable claim, it is shown in the fact, that Shazza intended to Shock Louis in an effort to revenge, Shazza statement was a violent shock which might actually cause Louis harm or mental distress as a reasonable person in the same position might also suffer the same (R v Burstow). The rule in Wilkinson V downton will provide remedy for physical and psychiatric harm intentionally cause by false statement. Conclusion In my opinion as to whether to sue in all of the above cases would be to advise the parties that all the claims and injuries are trivial and that their money and psychic energy would be well spent on other activities.
Without clarifying the instruction, it was suggested that if the behavior is not what a reasonable person would consider to be a “normal consequence” of the situation created by defendant's conduct, then said intervening act is a superseding cause. Consequently, it does not convey the relevant standard—whether the probability of harm is “sufficiently serious that a reasonable and prudent person would take precautions to avoid it.” (Iturralde, 2013)
Although she was undeniably injured and her suffering is provable, she cannot establish that she was injured directly by Bob Barton¡¦s actions. The relevant case law for this situation comes from several cases from Kentucky: 761 S.W.2d 625, 597 S.W.2d 141, 147 S.W. 742, 112 S.W. 600, and 77 S.W. 361 among others. These cases establish the law as defined by the courts that without physical contact a claim for negligence cannot be reputable.
In order to commit the crime of simple battery in the state of Georgia, the following elements must be present at the time the crime is being committed: “(1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; or (2) Intentionally causes physical harm to another.”
In her respective judgement, McLachlin J states in the case report that ‘The traditional rule, as noted, is that the plaintiff in an action for trespass to the person (which includes battery) succeeds if she can prove direct interference with her person.’
She advised that Lisa became argumentative and stated "you're so ugly, how you let your kids kiss you.” Marion advised that Lisa then threw a VHS tape at her which barely missed her face. Lisa then picked up another tape and began to swing it in the direction of her. Marion stated in defense, she put up her hands and attempted to block from being hit. Marion advised she then shoved her which made her fall to the ground. After Lisa got up from the ground, they both went their separate ways and called the police. Both the victim and accused were advised that I would create a report for Simple Assault and they could sign criminal charges anytime up to a
If the victim is injured, or suffered physical or emotional distress, they have the right to sue in civil court, where you may be ordered to pay monetary damages such as medical bills, compensation for the victim’s lost days at work, and even money for the pain and suffering caused to the victim.
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...
Also when Danny picks up Andy's vase and throws it at him which ends up hurting him, he commits the tort of battery.According to Avtar Singh, the tort of battery can be confirmed if the person can prove that an object was brought into contact with one's body harmfully without his consent.
...as charged for selling to an police officer while on duty. The clerk had no idea that the police officer was still on duty because the officer had taken off his arm-band. The author stated, the offense of strict liability is not intentionally. Which is true how can someone be held accountable for other people actions if they had no idea what is going on. People are not mind readers and people should be held accountable for their own actions.
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
Battery is harmful contact, or the imminent threat of harmful or offensive contact, of one person against another, and the direct or indirect results of the affected person from this harmful or offensive contact. The defendant, Grem, arrived at Logan’s around 12:30am. Grem was intoxicated while at Logan’s. The plaintiff, Agnes, arrived at Logan’s around 12:15am to 12:30am and awaited the arrival of his girlfriend, Scelza, who arrived at 1:00am. Upon her arrival, Grem made a profane and defamatory statement about Scelza, followed with laughter at her. Agnes asked Grem to apologize to Scelza but Grem did not apologize. Shortly after, Agnes decided to leave Logan’s with Scelza to avoid a confrontation with Grem, because he felt that Grem was highly
This policy effected all the legal concepts of implied contractual terms, absence of legal duty of care , contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk and the doctrine of “common employment” during this time period. Eventually the doctrine was changed and employers were responsible to different types of liability caused to their employees by the negligence of their fellow employees. Overtime, the previous judicial mechanisms were broken down and has been fast and essential. Eventually the doctrine of “common employment” and the other enforced concepts were repealed in the form of statue; “Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1958”.
Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.
The common elements between battery, assault and false imprisonment are that the wrong must be committed by direct and intentional means, with direct and unintentional acts falling under the tort of negligence. Battery and assault require the claimant to establish that the defendant intended to act, while false imprisonment is a tort of strict liability. The guiding principle behind all three is based on the statement by Lord Justice Goff who stated in Collins v Wilcock that "any person's body is inviolate", excepting normal, day-to-day physical contact.