LLAW 1223 Exam Notes
LLAW 1223 Exam Notes Intentional Torts to the Person Trespass Huchins v Maughan [1947] VLR 131 Summary:
Maughan, the defendant placed bates on the ground at the end of an unfenced property. The plaintiff’s dogs ate the baits and died. The plaintiff was made aware of the baits.
Rule:
The trespass must be direct. The fact that the harm cause was consequential is not enough to prove that the trespass actually occurred. If the defendant had placed the baits at the feet on the dogs trespass would have occurred [134].
Judgment:
Held that the injury suffered by the complainant was consequential upon and not directly or immediately occasioned by the act of the defendant and that trespass did not lie.
Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98 Summary:
Unlawful arrest, assault, and battery. Employee touched a patron on the shoulder to ask him to identify himself.
Rule:
A person touching another person for the purpose of identification constitutes ‘everyday contact’ as it does not go beyond what would be expected in every day conduct.
Judgement:
Claim dismissed with costs.
Trevorrow v South Australia (2007) SASC 285 Facts:
A member of the stolen generation was awarded damages for being unlawfully taken from his family and placed into care for 10 years from the age of 13 months.
Held:
No knowledge of confinement is required to make out the tort. It was no defence to argue that the officers of the state had acted within their perceived statutory duties.
South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow (2010) SASC 56 Facts:
As above
Held:
A child placed into foster care, who has the freedom of movement, and the care and nurture of any other child does not amount to confinement in the necessary sense [277]-[309].
White & Ors v State of South Australia [2010] SASC 95 Facts:
The case was in relation to protesters at the Beverley Uranium Mine. In this case the plaintiffs were assaulted, and falsely imprisoned.
Rule:
The instilling of fear that physical harm may eventuate, regardless of whether the defendant intended to instil the fear would constitute assault. There is no requirement that physical contact actually occurred [368]-[374]. The unlawful deprivation of a person’s freedom regardless of how minuet would constitute false imprisonment [413].
Judgment:
The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to aggravated damages for the embarrassment caused and exemplary damages for the actions of the police for unlawful acts.
Price v Southern Cross Television (TNT9) Pty Ltd Facts:
The case revolved around the plaintiff shooting a television series, where the plaintiff climbed a cliff face to jump from a ledge. The plaintiff argued that that the defendant falsely imprisoned her and that she was forced to jump from the ledge with entailed an element of danger.
Rule:
False imprisonment does not occur when the plaintiff has a reasonable access of escape.
Judgment:
Although a certain level of enticement or coercion is acceptable the plaintiff had the option to be escorted off the cliff face. The plaintiff declined the request and as a result the defendant was not found liable.
McHale v Watson Facts:
Child fired a dart that hit a young girl in the eye.
Rule:
The onus of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the trespass occurred. Once this is proved the onus then moves to the defendant to show that there was a legal reason for the contact.
False Imprisonment Bird v Jones There must be a reasonable means of escape. In this case D and P were on a bridge, P claimed he was falsely imprisoned, however D could have turned around and left the bridge. Myer Store v Soo P cannot claim false imprisonment if P remained through free will. In this case the security guards holding P in the office was false imprisonment as P believed he was not able to leave. P later attended the police station. As he had an ulterior motive for attending he chose to remain on his own free will.
Maughan, the defendant placed bates on the ground at the end of an unfenced property. The plaintiff’s dogs ate the baits and died. The plaintiff was made aware of the baits.
Rule:
The trespass must be direct. The fact that the harm cause was consequential is not enough to prove that the trespass actually occurred. If the defendant had placed the baits at the feet on the dogs trespass would have occurred [134].
Judgment:
Held that the injury suffered by the complainant was consequential upon and not directly or immediately occasioned by the act of the defendant and that trespass did not lie.
Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98 Summary:
Unlawful arrest, assault, and battery. Employee touched a patron on the shoulder to ask him to identify himself.
Rule:
A person touching another person for the purpose of identification constitutes ‘everyday contact’ as it does not go beyond what would be expected in every day conduct.
Judgement:
Claim dismissed with costs.
Trevorrow v South Australia (2007) SASC 285 Facts:
A member of the stolen generation was awarded damages for being unlawfully taken from his family and placed into care for 10 years from the age of 13 months.
Held:
No knowledge of confinement is required to make out the tort. It was no defence to argue that the officers of the state had acted within their perceived statutory duties.
South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow (2010) SASC 56 Facts:
As above
Held:
A child placed into foster care, who has the freedom of movement, and the care and nurture of any other child does not amount to confinement in the necessary sense [277]-[309].
White & Ors v State of South Australia [2010] SASC 95 Facts:
The case was in relation to protesters at the Beverley Uranium Mine. In this case the plaintiffs were assaulted, and falsely imprisoned.
Rule:
The instilling of fear that physical harm may eventuate, regardless of whether the defendant intended to instil the fear would constitute assault. There is no requirement that physical contact actually occurred [368]-[374]. The unlawful deprivation of a person’s freedom regardless of how minuet would constitute false imprisonment [413].
Judgment:
The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to aggravated damages for the embarrassment caused and exemplary damages for the actions of the police for unlawful acts.
Price v Southern Cross Television (TNT9) Pty Ltd Facts:
The case revolved around the plaintiff shooting a television series, where the plaintiff climbed a cliff face to jump from a ledge. The plaintiff argued that that the defendant falsely imprisoned her and that she was forced to jump from the ledge with entailed an element of danger.
Rule:
False imprisonment does not occur when the plaintiff has a reasonable access of escape.
Judgment:
Although a certain level of enticement or coercion is acceptable the plaintiff had the option to be escorted off the cliff face. The plaintiff declined the request and as a result the defendant was not found liable.
McHale v Watson Facts:
Child fired a dart that hit a young girl in the eye.
Rule:
The onus of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that the trespass occurred. Once this is proved the onus then moves to the defendant to show that there was a legal reason for the contact.
False Imprisonment Bird v Jones There must be a reasonable means of escape. In this case D and P were on a bridge, P claimed he was falsely imprisoned, however D could have turned around and left the bridge. Myer Store v Soo P cannot claim false imprisonment if P remained through free will. In this case the security guards holding P in the office was false imprisonment as P believed he was not able to leave. P later attended the police station. As he had an ulterior motive for attending he chose to remain on his own free will.
