Intentional torts
Difference between fault based laws and no fault based laws – can be accounted for by the different priorities that each displays, fault based systems aims to uphold wrongdoers personally responsible for correcting the consequence for their actions while no fault schemes give a higher priority to looking after injured victims regardless of how the injuries cam about. (workers rehabilitation schemes). In no fault schemes, contributions or insurance premiums are paid by all who participate in the job, and thus the costs are shared across a wider group. The benefit received is less than in tort law but there is more of a chance of getting some money.
Intentional torts Battery Is an unjustified act by one person that intentionally, recklessly or negligently causes direct and immediate physical contact or interference with a body of another person. Elements
Positive act by D Defendants act must cause physical contact or interference with the body of plaintiff. Defendant must have intended to cause the contact with plaintiff.
Onus of Proof – lies on plaintiff to prove first two elements on the balance of probability, once proven the onus of proof shifts to defendant to disprove faults, prove lawful justification or raise a valid defence. Principle - protects both the physical integrity of our bodies and our right to control access to our bodies. Defence – defendant sometimes plead that a case is time barred under the relevant limitation of action legislation. Cases (1) - Cole V Turner (1704) Holt CJ explained three points ‘First that the least touching in another in anger is batter’ Secondly if two or more meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touched the other gently, it will be no battery Thirdly, if any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude inordinate manner it will be battery, Case (2)- Scott v Shepherd (no direct contact needed) Physical contact in this case happened when defendant threw lighted firework into a crowded marketplace and each stallholder instinctively threw it away and it then landed and blinded the plaintiff in one eye.
Issue- was contact with body of plaintiff direct and immediate result of defendants conduct (trespass would apply) or was it consequential ( only action on case would apply) Decision- it was held by majority that physical contact was sufficiently direct affect of defendant’s conduct. Act by stall holders were not new or intervening causes of contact. ‘Extended’ conception of directness will apply, where contact is result of another person acting out of a compulsive necessity of his or her own safety and original actor will be held to have directly caused the contact. Case (3)- Rixon v Star City (everyday contact) It was held that an employee’s touching of another patron on the shoulder and asking him to identify himself was covered by the ‘everday contact exception because it did not go beyond what is generally excepted in the ordinary conduct of daily life Case 4 – Collins v Wilcock (cop arresting prostitute Page 135
Intentional torts Battery Is an unjustified act by one person that intentionally, recklessly or negligently causes direct and immediate physical contact or interference with a body of another person. Elements
Positive act by D Defendants act must cause physical contact or interference with the body of plaintiff. Defendant must have intended to cause the contact with plaintiff.
Onus of Proof – lies on plaintiff to prove first two elements on the balance of probability, once proven the onus of proof shifts to defendant to disprove faults, prove lawful justification or raise a valid defence. Principle - protects both the physical integrity of our bodies and our right to control access to our bodies. Defence – defendant sometimes plead that a case is time barred under the relevant limitation of action legislation. Cases (1) - Cole V Turner (1704) Holt CJ explained three points ‘First that the least touching in another in anger is batter’ Secondly if two or more meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touched the other gently, it will be no battery Thirdly, if any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude inordinate manner it will be battery, Case (2)- Scott v Shepherd (no direct contact needed) Physical contact in this case happened when defendant threw lighted firework into a crowded marketplace and each stallholder instinctively threw it away and it then landed and blinded the plaintiff in one eye.
Issue- was contact with body of plaintiff direct and immediate result of defendants conduct (trespass would apply) or was it consequential ( only action on case would apply) Decision- it was held by majority that physical contact was sufficiently direct affect of defendant’s conduct. Act by stall holders were not new or intervening causes of contact. ‘Extended’ conception of directness will apply, where contact is result of another person acting out of a compulsive necessity of his or her own safety and original actor will be held to have directly caused the contact. Case (3)- Rixon v Star City (everyday contact) It was held that an employee’s touching of another patron on the shoulder and asking him to identify himself was covered by the ‘everday contact exception because it did not go beyond what is generally excepted in the ordinary conduct of daily life Case 4 – Collins v Wilcock (cop arresting prostitute Page 135
