Lecture 2 Assault & False Imprisonment

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Criminal Law Chapter 5.
Advertisements

LAW OF TORTS LECTURE 3 Intentional torts to Chattels
CHAPTER 6 REVIEW Let the Games Begin
Lecturer: Miljen Matijašević Session 2,
What You’ll Learn How to define negligence (p. 88)
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2.
Topic 8 Trespass to the person test Topic 8 Trespass to the person test.
Defences Alibi Best defence possible Best defence possible Proof that the accused could not have possibly committed the offence Proof that the accused.
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Intentional Torts Section 4.1.
Chapter 15 Intentional Torts Intentional Torts - When people deliberately cause harm or loss to another person Intent – the desire to commit an act for.
The Law of Torts Chapter 4. The Corner Cafe Characters: Jamila ………………….Ms. Walton Thai …………………….Jacoy Daniel …………………. Peggy ………………….Kerisha.
I’ll sue!! TORT LAW Introduction TortTort is the French word for a “wrong.” Tort law protects a variety of injuries and provides remedies for them.
Torts A Revision Seminar Stuart Butterworth. Torts A Examination Issue spotting.
TORTS INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT. INTENTIONAL TORTS Intentional torts share the requirement that the defendant desires the result or knows to substantial.
Business Law Tort Law.
Chapter 3 Tort Law.
Chapter Fourteen Negligence and Intentional Torts This multimedia presentation and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited.
Lecture 1 Lecturer: Prof Sam Blay Intentional Torts
LAW OF TORTS Weekend Lecture 1A Lecturer: Clary Castrission
Private Wrongs: Torts Negligence and Strict Liability Chapter 14.
TEXT BOOKS *Baker, Blay et al Torts Law in Principle LBC 2005 *Baker, Blay et al Torts Law in Principle LBC 2005 *Blay, Torts in a Nutshell LBC 2006 *Blay,
TEXT BOOKS *Baker, Blay et al Torts Law in Principle LBC 2002 *Baker, Blay et al Torts Law in Principle LBC 2002 *Blay, Torts in a Nutshell LBC 1999 *Blay,
THE LAW OF TORTS WEEK 1.
THE LAW OF TORTS INTRODUCTION INTENTIONAL TORTS: TRESPASS.
THE LAW OF TORTS INTRODUCTION INTENTIONAL TORTS: TRESPASS.
LAW OF TORTS LECTURE 3 Intentional torts to Chattels Action on the case for Wilful Injury Defences to Intentional Torts Greg Young
By : Lillie Gray 1 st period Business Law Exam.  Crime- an offense against the public at large, which is therefore punishable by the government.  Tort-
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Intentional Torts Section 4.1.
CIVIL LAW 3.2 TYPES OF TORTS. Types of Torts  There are three categories of torts:  Intentional Wrong  Negligence  Strict Liability.
Civil Liability Issues Chapter 7. Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning Objectives Define –Intentional torts of battery, assault, false imprisonment,
Intentional Torts Law in Action – Ch. 15.
Business Law. Your neighbor Shana is using a multipurpose woodcutting machine in her basement hobby shop. Suddenly, because of a defect in the two-year.
Business Law Jeopardy True or False?MultipleChoiceTortsVocabularyBonus.
Defences are used to prove that the accused is not guilty of the offence, or guilty of a lesser offence. The best defence is an alibi. The alibi must.
The Law Of Torts Chapter #4.
Torts in a Health care setting. What is a Tort? A tort is an infringement of a person’s rights that constitutes grounds for a lawsuit. This may be in.
Chapter 19: Intentional Torts
Defenses.  Option #1: do not present any defense force government to prove its case  Option #2: Incorporate any number of defense strategies that are.
School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders, 5e © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 6 School Personnel.
LS 500 Unit Nine Town Hall Saturday, February 11, 2012 John Gray Welcome! Are there any questions about the material.
The Law Governing the Use of Force. The Use of Force The use of force on another is unlawful unless it is justified Justification requires a showing that.
Chapter 18 Intentional Torts. Intentionally With Purpose, done deliberately for a specific reason.
Defences to Intentional Torts Clary Castrission. MISTAKE An intentional conduct done under a misapprehension Mistake is generally not a defence in tort.
THE LAW OF TORTS WEEK 1. TEXT BOOKS Dominic Villa Annotated Civil Liability Act Lawbook Co. (2013) Dominic Villa Annotated Civil Liability Act Lawbook.
The Law of Torts.
Criminal Law Chapter 3. Classifications of Crimes Crime: –Considered an act against the public good Plaintiff: –The party that accuses a person of a crime.
LAW OF TORTS QUESTION ONE (a)State the difference between intentional and unintentional tort. Illustrate your answer with examples. (b)Explain briefly.
Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education Canada4-1 Chapter 4: Intentional Torts.
TRESPASS Monday 1 August categories of Trespass  Trespass to the person  Trespass to land  Trespass to goods (things)
Chapter 4 The Law of Torts. Tort One person’s interference with another’s rights, either through intent, negligence, or strict liability. Tortfeasor:
TRESPASS TO PERSON Faculty of law 1 chapter nine22 November 2014.
The Law of Torts Chapter 4. Intentional Torts Crime: –Harm to specific individuals and also to the general welfare Tort: –Private wrong committed by one.
4Chapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Intentional Torts Section 4.1.
Intentional Torts Chapter 19. Types of Damages Compensatory Damages- money awarded to compensate for monetary loss and pain and suffering Nominal Damages-
Civil Law An overview of Tort Law – the largest branch of civil law Highlight the differences between tort law and criminal law How torts developed historically.
SLO: I can understand the three types of torts, including negligence, intentional torts, and strict liability. I can appreciate that personal freedom in.
Intentional Torts  Intentional torts are actions taken with the intent to harm another person or another's property. The intent to harm does not have.
Civil Liability Issues and Negligence Unit 4. Objectives Define the intentional torts of battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction.
Understanding Business and Personal Law Negligence and Strict Liability Section 4.2 The Law of Torts A person can commit an unintentional tort, when he.
Common law torts Tort of negligence (3 years – period of prescription) Nuisance: private and public nuisance Slander and libel (defamation) Transpass to.
Law-Related Ch Notes I. Torts: 1. A tort is a civil wrong.
Section 4.2.
The Law of Torts I’m going to sue you!.
Civil Law An overview of Tort Law – the largest branch of civil law
Chapter 6 Tort Law Chapter 6: Tort Law.
Trespass to the person and defences
Trespass to Person By Waseem I. khan Assistant Professor Shri Shivaji Law College, Parbhani, Maharashtra contact:
Torts – Introduction Torts deals with the relationships between people and the liability of one person for failing to live up to society’s standards for.
Section Outline Unintentional Torts Negligence Strict Liability
Trespass.
Presentation transcript:

Lecture 2 Assault & False Imprisonment Clary Castrission

In this lecture Assault False Imprisonment Defences to Intentional Torts

ASSAULT

ASSAULT The intentional/negligent act or threat of D which directly places P in reasonable apprehension of an imminent physical interference with his or her person or of someone under his or her control

The Gist of the Action …Assault necessarily involves the apprehension of injury or the instillation of fear or fright. It does not necessarily involve physical contact with the person assaulted: nor is such physical contact, if it occurs, an element of the assault. (Barwick CJ in The Queen v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467 at 472

THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT There must be a direct threat: Stephens v Myers (1830) In general, mere words are not actionable Barton v Armstrong (1969) Conditional threats Tuberville v Savage (1669) Police v Greaves (1964) Rozsa v Samuels (1969)

Zanker v Vartzokas and the issue of imminence/immediacy The Facts: Accused gives a lift to victim and offers money for sex; victim refuses. Accused responds by accelerating car, Victim tries to open door, but accused increases acceleration Accused says to victim: I will take you to my mates house. He will really fix you up Victim jumps from car then travelling 60km/h

Zanker v Vartzokas: The Issues Was the victim’s fear of sexual assault in the future reasonable? Was the feared harm immediate enough to constitute assault?

Zanker v Vartzokas: The Reasoning Where the victim is held in place and unable to escape the immediacy element may be fulfilled. The essential factor is imminence not contemporaneity The exact moment of physical harm injury is known to the aggressor It remains an assault where victim is powerless to stop the aggressor from carrying out the threat

So main issues with Assault Threat possible to be carried out? Future threats? Conditional threats: Not assault if its lawful (except will be if it is excessive) Must be possible to carry out

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

FALSE IMPRISONMENT The intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes the total restraint of P and thereby confines him/her to a delimited area without lawful justification The essential distinctive element is the total restraint

THE ELEMENTS OF THE TORT It requires all the basic elements of trespass: Intentional/negligent act Directness absence of lawful justification/consent , and total restraint

“A prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may in itself be moveable or fixed; but a boundary it must have; and that boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing… Some confusion seems to me to arise from the confounding imprisonment of the body with mere loss of freedom; it is one part of the definition of freedom to be able to go whithersoever one so pleases; but imprisonment is something more than the mere loss of this power; it includes the notion of restraint within some limits defined by a will or power exterior to our own.” Coleridge J in Bird v Jones (1845) at 744.

RESTRAINT The restraint must be total Bird v Jones ((1845) Total restraint implies the absence of a reasonable means of escape “If I lock a person in a room with a window from which he may jump to the ground at the risk of life or limb, I cannot be heard to say that he was not imprisoned because he was free to leap from the window.” Burton v Davies (1953) Barrier need not be physical Symes v Mahon (1922) Myer Stores v Soo

VOLUNTARY CASES In general, there is no FI where one voluntarily submits to a form of restraint Herd v Weardale (1913) Robinson v The Balmain New Ferry Co. (1904) Where there is no volition for restraint, the confinement may be FI Bahner v Marwest Hotels Co. (1970)

WORDS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT In general, words can constitute FI see Balkin & Davis pp. 55 to 56: “restraint… even by mere threat of force which intimidates a person into compliance without any laying on of hands” may be false imprisonment - Symes v Mahon

KNOWLEDGE IN FALSE IMPRISONMENT The knowledge of the P at the moment of restraint is not essential. Meering v Graham White Aviation (1919) Murray v Ministry of Defense (1988)

WHO IS LIABLE? THE AGGRIEVED CITIZEN OR THE POLICE OFFICER? In each case, the issue is whether the police in making the arrest acted independently or as the agent of the citizen who promoted and caused the arrest Dickenson v Waters Ltd (1931) Bahner v Marwest Hotels Co (1970)

DAMAGES False imprisonment is actionable per se The failure to prove any actual financial loss does not mean that the plaintiff should recover nothing. An interference with personal liberty even for a short period is not a trivial wrong. The injury to the plaintiff's dignity and to his feelings can be taken into account in assessing damages (Watson v Marshall and Cade )

OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS PERSON PROPERTY BATTERY ASSAULT FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Defences to Intentional Torts

MISTAKE An intentional conduct done under a misapprehension Mistake is generally not a defence in tort law Basely v Clarkson (1682) Cowell v Corrective Services Commission (1988)

CONSENT In a strict sense, consent is not a defence as such because in trespass, the absence of consent is an element of the tort See: Blay; ‘Onus of Proof of Consent in an Action for Trespass to the Person’ Vol. 61 ALJ (1987) 25 But McHugh J in See Secretary DHCS v JWB and SMB (Marion’s Case) 1992 175 CLR 218

VALID CONSENT Must be given to act complained of Mullloy v Hop Sang [1935] Must be no vitiating factors to nullify consent Hegarty v Shine (1878) Consent must be genuine Gillick v West Norfolk Health Authority (1986) Re F (1990)

CONSENT IN SPORTS McNamara v Duncan; Hilton v Wallace People who pursue recreational activities regarded as sports often do so in hazardous circumstances; the element of danger may add to the enjoyment of the activity Accepting risk, sometimes to a high degree, is part of many sports. A great deal of public money and private effort, and funding, is devoted to providing facilities for people to engage in individual or team sport. This reflects a view, not merely of the importance of individual autonomy, but also the public benefit of sport. Sporting injuries that result in physical injury are not only permitted: they are encouraged (Gleeson CJ in Agar v Hyde (2000) ) McNamara v Duncan; Hilton v Wallace Giumelli v Johnston McCracken v Melbourne Storm (2005)

STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON CONSENT Minors (Property and Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW) ss 14, 49 Children & Young Persons (Care and Protection Act) 1998 (NSW) ss 174, 175

SELF DEFENCE, DEFENCE OF OTHERS A P who is attacked or threatened with an attack, is allowed to use reasonable force to defend him/herself McLelland v Symons (1951) In each case, the force used must be proportional to the threat; it must not be excessive. D may also use reasonable force to defend a third party where he/she reasonably believes that the party is being attacked or being threatened.

NECESSITY The defence is allowed where an act which is otherwise a tort is done to save life or property: urgent situations of imminent peril Mouse’s Case (1609) Leigh v Gladstone (1909)

INSANITY Insanity is not a defence as such to an intentional tort. What is essential is whether D by reason of insanity was capable of forming the intent to commit the tort. White v Pile (1951) Morris v Marsden (1952)

INFANTS Minority is not a defence as such in torts. What is essential is whether the D understood the nature of his/her conduct Hart v AG of Tasmania (1979) Hogan v Gill (1992)

DISCIPLINE PARENTS R v Terry A parent may use reasonable and moderate force to discipline a child. What is reasonable will depend on the age, mentality, and physique of the child and on the means and instrument used. R v Terry

ILLEGALITY:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Persons who join in committing an illegal act have no legal rights inter se in relation to torts arising directly from that act. Smith v Jenkins (1970)

TRESPASS & CLA 2002 s.3B(1)(a) Civil Liability Act (“CLA”) i.e. CLA does not apply to “intentional torts”, except Part 7 of the Act. s.52 (2) CLA subjective/objective test i.e. subjective ("…believes…" & "…perceives…")/ objective ("…reasonable response…") test. s.53(1)(a) & (b) CLA i.e. “and” = two limb test; "exceptional" and "harsh and unjust“ are not defined in the Act so s.34 of the Interpretation Act 1987. s.54(1) & (2) CLA i.e. "Serious offence" and "offence" are criminal terms so reference should be made to the criminal law to confirm whether P's actions are covered by the provisions.