1. Lecture 1 Lecturer: Prof Sam Blay Intentional Torts
LAW OF TORTS
Lecture 1 Lecturer: Prof Sam Blay Intentional Torts
- Battery - Assault

2. TEXT BOOKS *Baker, Blay et al Torts Law in Principle LBC 4th Ed. 2005
*Blay, Torts in a Nutshell LBC 1999
Balkin & Davis Law of Torts (2004) 3rd Ed. Butterworths
Luntz and Hambly Torts Cases and Commentary (2006) Revised 5th Ed. Butterworths
Trindade and Cane The Law of Torts
Fleming, The Law of Torts (1996)

3. LEC Torts Website www.usyd.edu.au/lec/subjects/torts//materials.htm
Past exams & comments:

4. WHAT IS A TORT? A tort is a civil wrong
That (wrong) is based a breach of a duty imposed by law
Which (breach) gives rise to a (personal) civil right of action for for a remedy not exclusive to another area of law

5. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TORT AND A CRIME
A crime is public /community wrong that gives rise to sanctions usually designated in a specified code. A tort is a civil ‘private’ wrong.
Action in criminal law is usually brought by the state or the Crown. Tort actions are usually brought by the victims of the tort.
The principal objective in criminal law is punishment. In torts, it is compensation

6. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TORT AND A CRIME
Differences in Procedure:
Standard of Proof
Criminal law: beyond reasonable doubt
Torts: on the balance of probabilities

7. THE AIMS OF TORT LAW
Loss distribution/adjustment: shifting losses from victims to perpetrators
Compensation: Through the award of (pecuniary) damages
The object of compensation is to place the victim in the position he/she was before the tort was committed.
Punishment: through exemplary or punitive damages. This is a secondary aim.

8. INTERESTS PROTECTED IN TORT LAW
Personal security
Trespass
Negligence
Reputation
Defamation
Property
Conversion
Economic and financial interests

9. INTENTIONAL TORTS
INTENATIONAL TORTS
Trespass
Conversion
Detinue

10. WHAT IS TRESPASS?
Intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes an injury to the P or his /her property without lawful justification
The Elements of Trespass:
fault: intentional or negligent act
- injury must be direct
injury* may be to the P or to his/her property
- No lawful justification

11. *INJURY IN TRESPASS
Injury = a breach of right, not necessarily actual damage
Trespass requires only proof of injury not actual damage

12. THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS
Intentional/
negligent act
Direct interference
with person or property
Absence of lawful
justification + + +
A specific
form of trespass
“x” element =

13. SPECIFIC FORMS OF TRESPASS
PERSON
PROPERTY
BATTERY
ASSAULT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT

14. BATTERY
The intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes a physical interference with the body of P without lawful justification
The distinguishing element: physical interference with P’s body

15. THE INTENTIONAL ACT IN BATTERY
No liability without intention
The intentional act = basic willful act + the consequences.

16. CAPACITY TO FORM THE INTENT
D is deemed capable of forming intent if he/she understands the nature of (‘intended’) his/her act
-Infants
Lunatics
Morris v Marsden
Hart v A. G. of Tasmania ( infant cutting another infant with razor blade)

17. THE ACT MUST CAUSE PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE
The essence of the tort is the protection of the person of P. D’s act short of physical contact is therefore not a battery
The least touching of another could be battery
Cole v Turner (dicta per Holt CJ)
‘The fundamental principle, plain and incontestable, is that every person’s body is inviolate’ ( per Goff LJ, Collins v Wilcock)

18. The Nature of the Physical Interference
Rixon v Star City Casino (D places hand on P’s shoulder to attract his attention; no battery)
Collins v Wilcock (Police officer holds D’s arm with a view to restraining her when D declines to answer questions and begins to walk away; battery)
Platt v Nutt

19. THE INJURY MUST BE CAUSED DIRECTLY
Injury should be the immediate:
Scott v Shepherd ( Lit squib/fireworks in market place)
Hutchins v Maughan (poisoned bait left for dog)
Southport v Esso Petroleum(Spilt oil on P’s beach)

20. THE ACT MUST BE WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION
Consent is Lawful justification
Consent must be freely given by the P if P is able to understand the nature of the act
Lawful justification includes the lawful act of law enforcement officers
Wilson v. Marshall (D accused of assaulting police officer, held officer’s conduct not lawful)

21. TRESPASS: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

22. THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT
There must be a direct threat:
Hall v Fonceca (Threat by P who shook hand in front of D’s face in an argument)
In general, mere words are not actionable
Barton v Armstrong
In general, conditional threats are not actionable
Tuberville v Savage
Police v Greaves
Rozsa v Samuels

23. THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT
The apprehension must be reasonable; the test is objective
The interference must be imminent
Rozsa v Samuels
Police v Greaves
Hall v Fonceca
Zanker v Vartzokas (P jumps out of a moving van to escape from D’s unwanted lift)

24. THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS
Intentional/
negligent act
Direct interference
Absence of lawful
justification + + +
A specific
form of trespass
“x” element =

25. SPECIFIC FORMS OF TRESPASS
PERSON
PROPERTY
BATTERY
ASSAULT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT