Tort Law Flashcards
(17 cards)
Latter v Braddell
Mrs. Latter, a domestic servant, was suffering from abdominal pain. Her employer, Mr. Braddell, arranged for a doctor to examine her. Although she did not want to be examined, she submitted to it because she believed she had no choice as a servant. She later sued for assault and battery, claiming the examination was non-consensual. The court held that there was no assault and battery because Mrs. Latter had consented to the examination, even if reluctantly. The consent was considered valid as there was no physical force or clear duress involved.
Coward v Baddeley
the plaintiff, Coward, sued the defendant, Baddeley, for false imprisonment. Coward had been detained by a churchwarden and constable on suspicion of being a rogue and vagabond under the Vagrancy Act 1824. However, the plaintiff claimed that there was no proper legal justification for the detention, and that he was wrongfully imprisoned. The court held that detaining someone without proper legal authority or justification constitutes false imprisonment, even if done under suspicion of a crime. In this case, the detention of the plaintiff under the Vagrancy Act was unlawful because the proper legal procedures were not followed.
Nash v Sheen
Mrs. Nash, the plaintiff, visited a hair salon owned by the defendant, Sheen, for a hair treatment—specifically, a set and a shampoo. However, without her consent, the salon applied a perm (permanent wave) to her hair. As a result, she suffered a skin reaction and discomfort from the unauthorized chemical treatment. The court held that carrying out a hair treatment without the customer’s consent constitutes battery, even if no harm was intended. Consent is essential for any physical contact, and its absence makes the act unlawful.
NHS v Island
This case involved a Jehovah’s Witness patient who refused to consent to a blood transfusion on religious grounds. The NHS Trust sought a court order to override the refusal and provide the treatment, arguing it was necessary to save the patient’s life. The court held that a mentally competent adult has the right to refuse medical treatment, even if that refusal may result in death. As the patient was found to have mental capacity, the court respected their autonomy and denied the NHS Trust’s request to impose the treatment.
R v Williams
In this case, a singing teacher was charged with indecent assault. He told a young female student that he needed to perform a medical procedure to improve her breathing for singing. Relying on this false representation, the girl consented to the act, which turned out to be non-consensual sexual touching. Consent obtained through deception about the nature or purpose of the act is not valid consent. Because the singing teacher misled the girl into thinking the act was a medical procedure to help her singing, her consent was invalid, and the act amounted to indecent assault.
Stanley V Powell
During a pheasant shooting trip, the defendant, Powell, fired at a bird. The bullet ricocheted off a tree and accidentally hit the plaintiff, Stanley, causing injury. Stanley sued Powell for negligence. It was held that A person is not liable in tort for accidental harm if they acted without negligence and took reasonable care. In this case, since the injury was caused by a misfortune not due to negligence, the defendant was not legally responsible.
Fowler v Lanning
In Fowler v. Lanning [1959], the plaintiff sued the defendant for injuries caused by a gunshot but did not state whether the act was intentional or negligent. The issue was whether such a general claim for injury was sufficient in tort law. The defendant argued that without alleging fault, the claim should not proceed. The court agreed, stating that an action for personal injury must clearly allege either negligence or intentional conduct. Therefore, the case was dismissed, establishing that harm alone is not enough—there must be fault for liability in tort.
Cockcroft v Smith
The plaintiff, Cockcroft, put his fingers in the face of the defendant, Smith, who responded by biting off his finger. The plaintiff sued for battery, but the defendant claimed self-defence. The court considered whether the defendant’s response was reasonable and proportionate to the threat. It held that the force used in self-defence must be necessary and not excessive in relation to the threat posed. Since biting off a finger was disproportionate to the plaintiff’s act, the court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the defence of self-defence failed.
Kirk v Gregory
A woman moved jewelry belonging to a deceased person from one room to another in the house after his death, fearing it might be stolen. However, while in the new location, the jewelry was in fact stolen, and the executor of the estate sued her for trespass to goods. She argued that she acted out of necessity, trying to protect the property from theft. The court held that the defence of necessity did not apply, because there was no immediate danger, and her actions were unauthorized. Therefore, she was liable for trespass, as moving the goods without legal authority or imminent threat was unjustified.
Southwark London Borough v Williams
Homeless individuals entered and occupied empty houses owned by the local council due to their desperate need for shelter. When the council sought to remove them, the occupants argued their actions were justified by the defence of necessity, claiming they had nowhere else to go. The court acknowledged their difficult situation but held that necessity is not a valid defence to trespass to land in this context. Allowing such a defence would undermine property rights and lead to lawlessness, as anyone in need could justify entering private property. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the council, reinforcing that necessity does not justify unlawful occupation of property.
R v Dudley and Stephens
Two shipwrecked sailors, along with a third sailor and a young cabin boy, were stranded at sea without food or water. After several days, Dudley and Stephens killed the 17-year-old boy to use his body for sustenance, arguing that it was necessary to save their own lives. They were rescued days later and charged with murder. The court rejected their defence of necessity, holding that killing an innocent person to preserve one’s own life is not legally justifiable. Dudley and Stephens were found guilty of murder, and the case established that necessity is not a defence to murder.
Letang v Cooper
The plaintiff, Letang, was sunbathing in a car park when the defendant, Cooper, accidentally ran over her legs while driving. The incident was clearly unintentional, and Letang tried to sue for trespass to the person (battery). However, because the statutory time limit for negligence had passed, she attempted to bring the claim under trespass, which had a longer limitation period. The court held that where the injury is caused unintentionally, the correct cause of action is negligence, not trespass. As a result, Letang’s claim failed, and the case established that trespass to the person requires intentional conduct.
Nichols v. Marsland
Facts: The defendant maintained artificial lakes on her property that overflowed during an exceptionally severe rainfall, causing flooding that damaged the plaintiff’s neighboring land. The plaintiff sued under the strict liability rule from Rylands v. Fletcher.
Holding: The court ruled for the defendant, holding that the unprecedented rainfall constituted an “Act of God” - a natural event so extraordinary and unforeseeable that it absolved the defendant of liability under strict liability principles. The flooding was deemed beyond human control or reasonable anticipation.
Ruck v Williams,
The defendant’s reservoir burst during an exceptionally heavy rainfall, causing flooding that damaged the plaintiff’s property, leading to a lawsuit under the strict liability principle of Rylands v Fletcher. The defendant argued that the flooding resulted from an “Act of God,” claiming the rainfall was so extraordinary that it could not have been reasonably anticipated or prevented. The court examined historical weather patterns and found that similarly severe rainfalls had occurred in the region before, making the event foreseeable. Consequently, the court rejected the “Act of God” defense and held the defendant liable, as the rainfall did not meet the required standard of being so unprecedented that no reasonable precautions could have prevented the damage. This decision clarified that for an event to qualify as an “Act of God,” it must be truly exceptional and unforeseeable, not merely severe or unusual.
Lemon v Webb
Lemon v Webb established that landowners may immediately cut back a neighbor’s overhanging branches causing actual harm (like blocking light or damaging structures) without prior notice, but must give warning before trimming harmless encroaching vegetation. The court drew this key distinction between active nuisances justifying self-help and passive overgrowth requiring neighborly notice, balancing property rights with reasonable conduct. For your scorecard, remember: “Harmful branches? Cut now. Harmless ones? Warn first.” This 1895 ruling remains vital for boundary tree disputes, clarifying when self-remedy is permitted versus when cooperation is required.
R v Ireland
Facts: The defendant made repeated silent phone calls to victims, causing severe psychological harm including anxiety and depression.
Principle (Assault): Assault can occur without physical contact if the defendant’s conduct creates a reasonable fear of imminent unlawful violence.
Principle (ABH): “Actual bodily harm” under s. 47 OAPA 1861 includes clinically recognized psychiatric injuries, not just physical harm.
Holding: Silent phone calls constituted assault as they caused victims to fear immediate violence, satisfying the mental element of the offence.
Holding: Psychiatric harm qualified as ABH, expanding the legal definition to protect mental well-being under criminal law.
Key Impact: Modernized assault laws to address non-physical threats and recognized psychological harm as legally actionable.
R v St George
n R v St George, the defendant pointed an unloaded gun at the victim while threatening to shoot, leading to assault charges. The court established that assault requires only the victim’s reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, regardless of the defendant’s actual ability to inflict injury. This case clarified that the impossibility of harm (like an unloaded gun) is irrelevant if the victim reasonably believes the threat could be carried out immediately. The ruling reinforced that assault focuses on the victim’s perception of danger rather than the defendant’s capacity to execute the threat. This principle remains foundational in distinguishing assault from battery in criminal and tort law.
Key Principle: A credible threat creating reasonable fear constitutes assault, even if no physical harm could actually occur.
