Tort Case Brief:

Livingstone v Ministry of Defence

SEMESTER 2 21/22

INSTRUCTOR’S NAME:

Madam Siti Humaiyah binti Bakri

INTRODUCTION TO CONTRACT & TORT LAW (LSC0144)

SECTION 309

GROUP MEMBERS:

NO. NAME MATRIC NO.

1. NUR RAIHANA SAKINAH BINTI MISNAN 214225

2. NUR ATIQAH DIYANAH BINTI MOHD HARIS 213774

Citation

Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984] NI 356, NICA

Plaintiff

Livingstone

Defendant

Ministry of Defence

Court

Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)

Name of the Judge

Hutton J

Date of Judgement

1 January 1984

Facts of the Case

A group of soldiers were dispatched to establish control over a riot. However, the security

forces had been attacked by rioters and a soldier fired a baton round into the crowd which

resulted in the plaintiff’s injury because of the striking. The defendant fired the round

deliberately and not aimed at the plaintiff but the target. Therefore, the defendant had no

intention to strike the plaintiff in the first place. The defendant did not plead any specific

defence justifying the firing of the baton round. The plaintiff then claimed negligence, assault

and battery.
Legal Issue (s)

The legal issues concerned in this case is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is struck intentionally by the baton by the defendant and

2. Whether it was possible to claim in a battery for the facts that the plaintiff was not the

intended target.

Decision of the Case

The court decided the appeal and ordered a new trial, rejecting the plaintiff's claim that there

was no battery because she was not the intended target: 'In my opinion, when a soldier fires at

one rioter with the goal of striking him and misses and hits another rioter nearby, the soldier

has 'intentionally' applied force to the rioter who was struck. Similarly, if a soldier fires a rifle

bullet at a rioter with the intent of striking him, and the bullet hits that rioter and passes

through his body, wounding another rioter directly behind the first rioter whom the soldier

had not seen, both rioters have been 'intentionally' struck by the soldier, and the soldier has

committed a battery against both.' (Hutton J)

Legal Terms and Their Meaning

1. Battery: Even if the injury is minor, the intentional hitting of someone with the aim to

harm or in a "rude and insolent way" No matter how severe the harm, a careless or

negligent inadvertent contact is not a battery. Battery is a criminal offence that can

also lead to a civil action if there is damage.

2. Assault: The threat or attempt to harm another, whether successful or unsuccessful, as

long as the victim is aware of the danger. The assaulter must be reasonably capable of

carrying through the attack. In some states, the intended victim does not need to be
 aware of the danger if the assault is carried out with a deadly weapon (such as sniping

with a rifle).

3. Damages: The amount of money that a plaintiff (the person who is suing) can receive

in a case.

4. Negligence: Failure to treat people with the care that a reasonable or prudent person

would in similar circumstances, or taking action that such a reasonable person would

not. Negligence differs from "intentional torts" (such as assault or trespass) and

crimes in that it is unintentional, yet a crime, such as careless driving, can also be

considered negligence.