battery (tpttp) Flashcards
(22 cards)
definition of battery.
the defendant volunratily does a positive act intending (or being subjectively reckless as whether) force is applied directly and unlawfully on another person
(winfield v jolowicz 2010)
what case supports the definition of battery.
Winfield v Jolowicz 2010
what is the burden and standard of proof
claimant- on the balence of probabilitys the elements of the tort if all elements cannot be met claim will fail.
defendant- have to probe on the balence of probabiltys any defences that may lawfully excuse their actionsif d can do so the claim fails.
common features of the tort of battery.
voluntarily
intend
subjectivly reckless
defendant must act positivly or be under a duty to do so but then failed to do so.
what does it mean that the defendants act must be voluntary
this means that there can be no tresspass to the person if the act was not voluntary. eg as a result of a spazm caused by a medical condition or being pushed into someone.
intention and consequences.
cannot intend a particular set of consequences or injury set out in letang v cooper 1965
can intention in battery be transfered.
yes can transfer the intention of the battery eg going to hit A and they duck and instead you hit B there is a transfer of intention. established in scott v shepard 1773.
is motive relevant.
motive is most likley irelevant ‘ an unwanted kiss may be a battery even though the defendants intention may be most amacable.
R v Chief constable of Devon and cornwall ex parte central electricity generating board 1982.
f v west berkshire area health authority 1990 motive is irrelevant.
Nash v Sheen 1990 bad hair cut.
is it enough to be subjectivly reckless.
iqubal v prison officers associtation
mere foresight oof the consequences would not be sufficient however a reckless disregard of the consequences is taken as sufficient to satisfy intention.
what amount of force amounts to an battery?
the slightest amount of touching can be an battery
cole v turner- the least touching in anger may be battery.
F v west berkshire area health authority 1990- any touching of anothers body without lawful excuse is capable of being an a battery.
types of force.
Spitting- r v cotesworth 1704.
hair rinse- nash v sheen
these torts are actionable there does not need to be proof of any measurable injury eg ohysical harm as a result of d;s conduct established in slater and swann.
however the greater the harm the higher the award of damages.
defendants action being direct.
defendants act must be sufficiently direct
claimant must prove that the consequences prohibited by the tort are brought around as a direct consequence of the defendants positive act or failiure to meet a postive duty to act.
established reynolds v clarke tripping over and throwing a log are different. one is direct the other indirect.
shoud follow a relaxed approach to directness. Haystead v chief constable of derbyshire 2000.
directness in practice.
contact via.
third party- scott v shepard firework negligence.
an agent- dodwell v burford 1670
clothing there is a transfer of force to the body pursell v horn 1838. (water thrown)
all held to be sufficient for the tort of battery.
can interviening acts break directness.
yes they can novus actus interveniens
interviening act of the claimant eg
hicks v young the claimant jumped out of a taxi.
list of cases.
cole v turner- anger touching
winfield v jolowciz- definition.
innes v wylie - positive act
iqbal v prison officers assotiation
letang v cooper - cant intend particular inury
scott v shepard- third party directness
r v chief constable of devon and cornwall- unwanted kissing
nash v sheen- hair cut
r v cotesworth- spitting
r v west berkshire health authority
slater v swann- actionable torts dont need to show injury.
reynolds v clarke - directness
pursell v horn- clothing
hicks v young- interviening acts can break directness- taxi.
innes v wylie
police officer stood outside the town hall and people said they could not leave as he was standing there.
demonstrated a positive act is required.
what case established that particilar consequences cant be intended
letang v cooper transfer cant intend a certain injury. (ran her legs over causing injury)
what case established intentions can be transfered.
scott v shepard (firework thrown in crowd)
can transfer the intention from one person to another eg going to hit A and they duck and you hit B instead.
what cases establish motive is irrelevant.
r v cheif constable of devon and cornwall ‘‘unwanted kiss may be battery even though defendants intentions are amicable.
f v west berkshire area health authority motive is irrelevant.
what cases establishes the amount of force that may be a battery.
cole v turner least amount of touching in anger may be battery.
r v west berkshire area health authoirty touching of another persons body in the absence of a lawful excuse may amount to a battery.
what cases establish the different types of force that may be used in a battery.
hair cut nash v sheen
spitting r v coteworth no direct force used.
what cases can be used in relation to sufficient directness.
reynolds v clarke tripping over and throwing a log are different one is direct and the other is indirect. throwing it into road and it hits someone that is direct but if someone later tripps on that log it is indirect.
scott v shepard- third party, shepard threw firework into crowd crowd threw it away and it exploded injuring Scotts eye even though shepard did not throw it directly at scott his intial action causes a chain of events leaving to hte injury.
dodwell v burford- agent dodwell riding horse and burford hit the horse causing dodd to fly off causing a battery.
pursell v horn- clothing throwing of water no direct contact between persons bodies.
