Battery

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

Intentional and unlawful infliction of force on another- Collins v Wilcock

Question 2

Elements required

Answer 2

Actionable per se tort meaning act must be INTENTIONAL and FORCE voluntary but no harm need be actually proved

Question 3

Where there was no intention

Answer 3

Letang v Cooper; D had no intention to run the sunbather over so there was no battery, only negligence

Question 4

Where ther was intention

Answer 4

Fagan v Metropolitan police commissioner; Although the D didnt initially intend to run over the policemans leg, he remained on the leg and so intention occured

Question 5

2 ways in which intention occurs

Answer 5

1. D commits a voluntary act
2. D intends a consequence despite the achieved one not being the intended one

Question 6

Where there was battery despite the D intending to hit someone else

Answer 6

Livingstone v Ministry of defence; Battery was intended for someone else but the claimant was hit thus there was battery

Question 7

Where there was battery despite the D not intending the achieved consequence

Answer 7

Williams v Humphrey; D intended to push the claimant, not to hurt him but there was still battery

Question 8

Traditional definition of force

Answer 8

Cole v Turner; the least touching in anger is force
Force was considered any unwanted physical touching

Question 9

Current definition of force

Answer 9

Any contact outside of everyday touching is considered force- opens up floodgate argument

Question 10

Criticisms of current definition of force

Answer 10

Courts struggle to draw the line between a battery and a social contact
Wilson v Pringle; Held that in order to determine Ds liability, there must be hostile intent but this is criticised as theres no definition for this

Question 11

Current position in relation to hostility in force

Answer 11

R v Brown; If Ds actions were unlawful they were likely hostile

Question 12

Defences available in battery

Answer 12

1. Consent- express or implied
2. Necessity
3. Self defence

Question 13

Implied consent as a defence

Answer 13

Nash v Sheen; Claimant didnt consent to have her hair dyed and so the defence of consent failed

Question 14

Consent in sport

Answer 14

Sport participants are taken to have consented to any activity or touching within the rules of the game
R v Billinghurst; A punch wasnt considered within the rules of rugby

Question 15

Consent in medicine

Answer 15

Consent must be given by a person of sound mind and this must be real

Question 16

Self-defence

Answer 16

Claimant can reasonably use force to defend property, themselves or another. This can include lethal force because reasonable is a question of fact-must be proportionate however
Revill v Newbury; Defence failed as greater force was used than needed

Question 17

Defence of necessity

Answer 17

Ds actions are justified if they prevent greater damage to the defendant or another. Where personal injury is threatened, any damage to property is justified