Tort Law Class Outline: TRESPASS TO PERSONS & RELATED MATTERS

(Sources: Winfield et al., R&D et al.)

Three major topics:

1. Trespass to person and related matters:
- battery,
- assault,
- false imprisonment
Related Matters:
- psychiatric harm,
- harassment

2. Trespass to land

3. Interference with goods:

- trespass to goods,
- detinue,
- conversion

These are intentional torts

 1. TRESPASS TO PERSON AND RELATED MATTERS

Some general principles underlying all kinds of trespass to persons:

1. Direct interference with a person’s body
2. Intention with respect to interference with someone’s body is required, but, not
necessarily the intention to cause harm
Some important case law on intention with respect to trespass to person:
- Fowler v. Lanning (In a hunting party, a person got shot. The claimant merely stated
that the defendant shot him. It was held that this statement was not enough to bring
about an action under tort law. The plaintiff has to show either negligence on the part
of the defendant or show that the defendant intentionally fired the gun (intention to
cause harm is not required)).
- Letang v. Cooper (defendant unintendedly drove over the legs of the plaintiff who
was sunbathing in front of a hotel- held that it was not a case of battery due to the
absence of intention on part of the defendant)
- Vosburg v. Putney 1891 (A schoolboy (defendant) kicked another school boy
(plaintiff) in the shin, across the aisle in a classroom. The plaintiff had a preexisting
injury in the tibia that the defendant was unaware of. The defendant’s kick
exacerbated the prior injury weakening the plaintiff’s leg for life. It was held that the
intention as to the contact was present (and the intention to cause harm was not
required) and the defendant had committed battery against the plaintiff and was held
responsible for all the injuries resulting from his action. Eggshell plaintiff rule:
“people must accept others as they find them.”)

3. Damages are irrelevant- they are not required to be proved

4. Intersection with criminal law: Trespass to person can be both a tort and a crime.
Our focus would be on tort and not criminal law, apart from some principles that are
relevant to both.
BATTERY
 There are five elements of the tort of battery (Winfield et al.):
1. An ACT
- intention to contact is required, but, not necessarily the intention to cause harm
- E.g. A pushes B into a swimming pool. B is injured. A is liable even if she had
no intention of injuring B.
2. By which CONTACT (direct) is made with the claimant’s body/ clothing
- e.g. A seizes B’s arm suddenly and uses it as a club to strike C. Here, A commits
battery against C, but, B does not commit battery against C.
- literal contact between the bodies of the claimant and defendant is not required
- contact can be through body or through an object like a stick, bullet, water etc.
- Generally infliction of light, heat, odor, smoke etc. do not constitute battery
3. This contact must be DIRECT
- passive obstruction does not constitute battery
4. This contact must be HOSTILE
- beyond the “ordinary conduct of everyday life”
- ill will or malice is not necessary
- the perception of the claimant is important (within reasonable limits)
5. The claimant DID NOT CONSENT to the contact

 Absolute right to bodily integrity?

- In many common law jurisdictions there is an absolute right to bodily integrity,
including the right to not eat and thus starve oneself to death. E.g. force feeding a
person on hunger strike can be considered to be battery.
- BUT, in India this is not so. For instance, force feeding a person on a hunger strike
(can die of starvation) is not considered to be battery.
 ASSAULT
 Definitional elements:
Apprehension of application of force
Physical contact not needed
Usually assault precedes battery. But, there can be battery without assault:
- a blow from behind
- when a blow is intercepted (Stephens v. Myers 1830)
 The claimant apprehends application of immediate force
- not a case of assault if someone standing outside the train waives a fist at a person
sitting in a fast moving train
 Assault can be committed by threatening words or gestures
- Even silent calls can constitute assault if the claimant has sufficient reason to believe
that the caller can carry out violence against the claimant immediately (R v. Ireland)
 Conditional assault: words can mellow down a threat
- E.g. Tubervell v. Savage: In the course of a conflict, the defendant puts his hand on
his sword and says to the plaintiff “if it were not assize time, I would not take such
language from you.” It was held that this action on part of the defendant did not
constitute assault.

Battery Assault
Intention Intention
+ +
Direct infliction of harm Immediate apprehension of application of
force
FALSE IMPROSONMENT
 Intentional imprisonment
- Physical contact is not necessary
- Prison or a place resembling prison is not necessary
- One can be imprisoned in one’s own house (Warner v. Riddiford)
- False imprisonment can happen on a street also.

 Without consent of the claimant

- There is no consent when there is use of force, fraud, threat, unwilling submission
etc.
- Peaceful/ unwilling submission does not mean consent

 State of mind of the defendant:

- The general rule is that intention on part of the defendant to imprison the claimant is
required (intentional tort)

 The person being imprisoned need not know that he/ she is being imprisoned
- For instance, the person being imprisoned can be asleep, in coma, mentally
challenged or drunk
- Case: Meering v. Grahame White Aviation Co. Ltd (1920) (claimant was suspected
of stealing a keg of varnish by his employer, and was accompanied to the waiting
room of the office by security officers who stood guard outside. It was held that the
defendant had committed false imprisonment even though the claimant was not aware
of the same at the time of his false imprisonment).
- Case: Murray v. Ministry of Defence (1988)

 The restraint must be complete

- A person’s movement need to be restrained from all directions
- E.g. Bird v. Jones (1845)- footpath on a bridge converted into a viewing point for a
boat race. Held: There was no false imprisonment when the plaintiff/ claimant was
restrained from going only in one direction, and he could have easily gone in any
other direction

 Means of escape: There is no false imprisonment if there are any reasonable means
of escape available

 There should be no lawful justification for the false imprisonment

Lawful detention is justifiable in certain cases, such as:
- the court recognizes “extra-judicial” imprisonment as a way of enforcing contractual
rights (e.g. Robinson v. Balmain New Ferry Co. Ltd (1910)- charging for entry and
exit into the defendant’s wharf was held to be reasonable. If someone tries to leave
without paying, it is considered to be reasonable and justifiable to detain him/her till
the payment is made).
- Under the CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code of India), Chapter V, s. 43: a private
person may detain another person if in her/his view, the person has committed:
1. non-bailable and cognizable offence (permitted to arrest without warrant)
2. or, is a proclaimed offender
- In case of a private person detaining another person, the person detaining is required
to hand over the detained person to the police as soon as possible.
 - Case: John Lewis & Co. v, Tims (1952)

 A person who has not personally detained another person can also be made liable for
false imprisonment.
- Case: Garikipati v. Araza Biksham (1978)

 A police officer can also be made liable for false imprisonment if the officer is acting
outside her/ his power. E.g. Kundan Lal v. Dr. Des Raj

 There is no minimum amount of time duration for false imprisonment to happen

 Remedies for false imprisonment:

- Use of reasonable force to free oneself
- Damages are provided for injury to liberty and mental suffering (Bhim Singh v.
State of Jammu and Kashmir)
- Habeas Corpus write under art. 32 and art. 226 of the Constitution of India- through
which immediate release of the person being detained can be ordered if the person is
being detained without a lawful justification.

Defence:

1. Consent
- Hudson v. Craft (1949): An individual cannot consent to an illegal act

2. Insanity
McGuire v. Almy (1937)
- Insane person is liable if hitting with intent. Insanity cannot be used as a defense in
this case.

3. Self defense
- Courvoisier v. Raymond (1896): a jewelry store owner shot the police officer
thinking him to be a robber. The defense of self-defense was allowed as the shop
keeper’s action was considered to be reasonable under the circumstances.
RELATED MATTERS (matters relating to trespass to person)
These are “acts intended to cause physical harm other than trespass.”
These matters deal with a situation which are neither battery nor assault, i.e.:
Intention
+
Injuria
+
Absence of directness or immediacy

- E.g.: A suddenly, loudly and intentionally shouts at a child climbing down the stairs. As a
result of A’s shout, the child gets startled, loses balance, falls and gets badly injured

The course covers two instances of “related matters”: a) psychiatric harm, and b) harassment

1) PSYCHIATRIC HARM
- The courts would impute intention for the harm caused to a person by an act of the
defendant that a reasonable person can foresee. The harm that is actually intended by the
defendant is immaterial.
- Wilkinson v. Downton 1897 (the practical joke case where the plaintiff experienced violent
shock, psychiatric trauma and permanent physical harm upon hearing from the defendant that
her husband had broken both of his legs in an accident. Intention was imputed to the
defendant and the defendant was held liable for the harm caused to the plaintiff).

2) HARASSMENT
 Harassment is civilly actionable for damages. Harassment can happen through:
- stalking
- persistent questioning by journalists
- abusive letters (Iqbal v. Dean Manson solicitors)
- bombarding a person with email/ text messages (APW v. WPA)
- playing loud music to distress one’s neighbor
The court sees “the course of conduct as a whole”
 Harassment can happen with or without a tort like battery, assault etc.
 3 statues are important for the syllabus:
 1. Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (U.K.)
- action under this act is available only if the conduct occurs at least twice.
- is available against all persons
2. Equality Act 2010 (U.K.)
- s. 26 defines harassment in detail: 2 part definition that protects certain
characteristics
- can be availed against only certain persons like employers and public good
providers
- even a one off event can trigger liability under this act
3. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Protection, Redressal and
Compensation) Act 2015 (India)
- History of the act in the Visakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997). The court laid
down guidelines based on CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of Form of
Discrimination Against Women)
- Section 2 (n) defines “sexual harassment”
- Section 2 (o) defines “work place”

 How to read a statute/ Different parts/ clauses of a statute:

- short title, long title, preamble, extent and commencement, definitions, operative
substantive part, the general part, miscellaneous, marginal comments

 Alia Bhatt short movie: Going Home