Problem Question
Arthur, who had been drinking heavily, entered Rudy’s pizza shop to buy a takeaway pizza.
Rudy took the order and requested payment. Arthur then discovered that he did not have money
to pay for the pizza and so Rudy asked him to leave. Arthur picked up a chair and waved it
above his head, shouting ‘Give me the pizza’. Billie retreated to the back of the shop, scared
and unable to escape. After five minutes or so of Arthur waving the chair and ranting, Chris
the delivery driver returned, having made a delivery. Seeing Arthur, he wrestled the chair out
of his hand, smashing Arthur in the head. Chris then sat on Arthur and called the police,
restraining him until the police arrived.
Advise Billie and Arthur as to what remedies they may have in tort.
Issue:
What remedies are available to Billie and Arthur in tort law following the incident at Rudy’s
pizza shop?
Rule:
Law of Tort provides remedies for individuals who have suffered harm or damage as a result
of the actions of others. The most common torts include negligence, battery, and assault.
Negligence occurs when a person fails to take reasonable care, resulting in harm to another
person. Battery occurs when one person intentionally touches another without their consent.
Assault occurs when one person intentionally causes another to fear immediate harm.
Application:
In this case, Arthur’s actions constitute assault and potentially battery, while Billie’s suffering
may be classified as emotional distress. Assault occurs when one person intentionally causes
another to fear immediate harm. Arthur’s waving of the chair above his head and shouting
‘Give me the pizza’ constitutes assault, as it caused Billie to retreat to the back of the shop,
scared and unable to escape. Arthur’s actions were intentional and had the effect of causing
Billie to experience emotional distress.
Battery, on the other hand, requires an intentional touching of another person without their
consent. Arthur’s actions in picking up the chair and waving it above his head could constitute
battery if he had made physical contact with Billie or anyone else in the shop. However, in this
case, it appears that no physical contact was made.
Chris, the delivery driver, may have committed battery by smashing Arthur in the head with
the chair. However, his actions could be justified as self-defense, as Arthur had been waving
the chair and shouting aggressively, posing a threat to the safety of those in the shop. Chris
acted reasonably and proportionately in disarming Arthur and restraining him until the police
arrived.
As for Billie’s emotional distress, she may be able to make a claim for damages under the tort
of intentional infliction of emotional distress. This tort requires the defendant’s conduct to be
extreme and outrageous, causing the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. Arthur’s
actions of waving the chair and shouting aggressively may be deemed extreme and outrageous,
and it resulted in Billie suffering emotional distress. Therefore, Billie may have a claim for
damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In the case of R v Ireland [1997] 3 W.L.R. 534, which is relevant to assalut, the defendant made
a series of silent phone calls to the victim, causing her to fear immediate violence. The court
held that the defendant’s conduct constituted assault, as it caused the victim to fear immediate
harm. Similarly, in Arthur’s case, his actions of waving the chair and shouting ‘Give me the
pizza’ caused Billie to fear immediate harm and thus constituted assault.
Another relevant case is Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. 57, which established the tort of
intentional infliction of emotional distress. In this case, the defendant played a practical joke
on the plaintiff by falsely informing her that her husband had been in an accident. The plaintiff
suffered a nervous shock as a result of the defendant’s conduct, and the court held that the
defendant was liable for damages for intentionally inflicting emotional distress. This case
provides a precedent for Billie’s potential claim for damages for intentional infliction of
emotional distress.
Conclusion:
Arthur’s actions constitute assault, and potentially battery, while Billie’s suffering may be
classified as emotional distress. Chris’ actions, on the other hand, were justified as self-defense.
Billie may have a claim for damages under the tort of intentional infliction of emotional
distress, while Arthur has no claim as his actions were unlawful. The appropriate remedy for
Billie’s claim would be damages, which would compensate her for the mental distress suffered
as a result of Arthur’s actions. Arthur, on the other hand, has no claim for damages as his
actions were unlawful.