Tort Law

Question 1

Assault

Answer 1

Assault compensates for mental or nervous injury. According to Miller v. AG, to establish assault, the claimant must lead evidence showing a direct act made voluntarily with an accompanying state of mind, without the defendant having a defense, especially the defence of consent.

Question 2

Test for assault

Answer 2

In the case of Read v. Coker, the court pegged the test as the ability to carry out the threat. However, in the case of Martin v. Shoppee, the court stated that assault will lie if the reasonable man will anticipate or fear imminent danger or battery.

Question 3

Case involving mere words

Answer 3

In the cases of R v Meade and Belt, the court held that mere words will not constitute assault. The court also stated in Mainland Sawmill v. USW that actions must give substance to the words.

Currently, the law in the case of R v Constanz and R v. Ireland, the court held that mere words will constitute assault if the reasonable man anticipate imminent battery or injury, assault will lie.

Question 4

Words negating prior actions

Answer 4

If a reasonable man loses his anticipation of imminent battery after the words are communicated, the celebrated case of Tuberville and Savage dictates that assault will not lie.

Question 5

Pointing an unloaded revolver or object that lacks the capacity to execute battery.

Answer 5

Previously, in the case of Blake v. Bernard, where an object that lacks the ability to carry out battery, assault will not lie.

Currently, in the case of R v. St George, assault will occur no matter if the object can cause battery as long as the reasonable man can imminently apprehend battery.

Question 6

Battery

Answer 6

Battery is a tort that compensates for physical interference with the body of another person. To establish battery, a claimant must proved the existence of a direct act made voluntarily pursuant to a mental state which leads to physical interference with the body of an aggrieved partyaccording to Miller v AG

Question 7

Elements of Battery

Answer 7

1. The existence of a direct act - Scot v Shepherd and Covell v. Laming.
2. There must be an action and not an omission to act - Innes v Wylie
3. The direct act must emanate from the limbs or body of the torffeasor - Gibbons v Pepper. Loss of anger will not suffice - Cole v Turner
4. Voluntary act must be executed pursuant to an intention or negligent conduct - Fowler v Lanning, Stanley v Powler
5. Proof of physical interference—Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner

Question 8

Case for punitive actions as deterrent

Answer 8

1. A public officer committing a deliberate unconstitutional act.
2. Situations where the tortfeasor will still make profit after pay the nominal and special damages
3. Situation provided by statute

The court assesses the evidence on the face of the record to decide the most appropriate remedy - Asare v Ofusuhene.

Question 9

Defence to battery

Answer 9

Defense, especially the defense of consent, negates battery. Dumbell v Roberts

Question 10

The Rule of Wilkinson v Downton

Answer 10

According to the decision of Wilkinson v. Downton, where a tortfeasor deliberately or willfully makes an act or representation that he knows or should have known led to injury and indeed is a resulting injury, the tortfeasor must compensate the claim for the injured feelings.