LW 2103 Law of Tort
•
•
•
•
•
Fact
Issue
Rules
Application
Conclusion
Fact
• Hugo quarreled with the couple, Tim and
Claudia over the renting of Hugo’s flat
• Hugo threw a pair of scissors at Tim
• Tim dodged
• But they hit Claudia
Issue
• Can Tim bring a legal action to Hugo, even
though he was not hit?
• Can Claudia bring a legal action to Hugo?
• If yes, in what legal reasons?
Rules
• Both assault and battery
– An act must be direct and intentional
– Proof of damage is not required
Rules
• Definition of “Assault”
– any direct and intentional act or conduct of the
defendant which puts a reasonable man in
apprehension of an imminent physical contact
with his body
Rules
• “Assault”
– The defendant actually attempts to strike the
plaintiff but fails
– The defendant does not make any actual
attempt but apparently prepares for an assault
– Only threatening words are uttered but both
parties are not in presence of each other
Rules
• Case – Assault
• Turberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3
• I de s et ux v W de s (1348), Year Books
Liber Assisarum s 99, p 60
Rules
• Case – Turberville v Savage
• It was held that the words negatived what
would otherwise have been an assault
• The defendant himself made it clear that
he would not attack the plaintiff
Rules
• Case -- I de s et ux v W de s
• Typical assault case
• It was held that where the defendant
struck at the plaintiff with a hatchet but
missed her, it was assault.
Rules
• Definition of “Battery”
– any direct and intentional application of force
by the defendant to the person of the plaintiff
– to protect a person against all unpermitted
contacts irrespective of whether there is any
physical harm or insult
Rules
• Battery requires some positive act, as
opposed to a mere omission, resulting in
actual physical contact with the plaintiff’s
body
Rules
•
•
•
•
Case – Battery
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374
Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440
Pursell v Horn (1838) 8 Ad & E1 602
Rules
• Case – Collins v Wilcock
• The fundamental principle that every
person’s body is inviolate…. This is a
question of physical contact which is
generally acceptable in the ordinary
conduct of everyday life.
Rules
• Case – Wilson v Pringle
• …. Hostility was not to be construed as
malice or ill-will and would be a question of
fact in each case. The act of touching in
itself might display hostility….
Rules
• Case -- Pursell v Horn
• The application of force need not be flesh
to flesh but may be effected through other
means, such as striking the plaintiff with a
knife or other objects.
Application
• Prima facie
– Hugo has committed assault to Tim, and
– Committed battery to Claudia
Application
• In Tim’s situation
– The defendant, Hugo, actually attempts to
strike the plaintiff but fails
– Similar to the case of I de s et ux v W de s
(1348), the defendant was liable to assault
even though the attack missed
Application
• The case of Turberville v Savage may not
be applied
– What the defendant did was actually hit Tim,
not through threatening words
Application
• In Claudia’s situation
• Hugo did use direct and intentional
application of force by the defendant to the
person of the plaintiff
Conclusion
• From prima facie evidence
– Tim can sue Hugo on the ground of assault
– Claudia can sue Hugo on the ground of
battery