This document outlines several intentional torts including trespass to person, land, and goods. It defines the key elements of battery, assault, and false imprisonment. For each tort, it provides examples of relevant case law that help establish the principles and tests used to determine liability. The document indicates that battery requires intentional and direct contact with the victim's body. Assault involves threatening conduct that causes a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. False imprisonment is established if the victim is intentionally confined without lawful justification and against their will.
David E Fink is a top criminal defense attorney in Baltimore MD. You can call on 410-547-0480 today if you have been charged with DUI, DWI or any other complex charge.
David E Fink is a top criminal defense attorney in Baltimore MD. You can call on 410-547-0480 today if you have been charged with DUI, DWI or any other complex charge.
Contract Law - Question given by lecturer and my answer.Maliza Eza
Mary promised to give her brothers RM500 monthly on the condition that their mother transfer some land to her. Their mother agreed and transferred the land to Mary. Mary however failed to fulfill her promise and her brothers sued her on the promise. Advise Mary.
Contract Law - Question given by lecturer and my answer.Maliza Eza
Mary promised to give her brothers RM500 monthly on the condition that their mother transfer some land to her. Their mother agreed and transferred the land to Mary. Mary however failed to fulfill her promise and her brothers sued her on the promise. Advise Mary.
1. Intentional Torts
Trespass to
Person Land, Goods or Goods
Person?
What type of What type of
trespass to Land trespass to
person? goods?
False Trespass to Trespass to
Battery Assault Conversion Detinue
Imprisonment Land Goods
&, only if
Direct Direct Direct Direct Direct
touching:
Intentional Intentional Intentional Intentional Intentional
Dispossesses OR
Contact w body Total deprivation of “sets foot up his moves OR destroys
Act or threat Touches
liberty neighbor’s close” OR uses OR
damages
which causes
Without reasonable An item, which P
reasonable fear of Without Permission
means of escape has title to
imminent harm
Without lawful Without lawful Without lawful Without lawful Without lawful
Justification Justification Justification Justification Justification
End.
2. Intentional
Torts
=/ hostile
= intention to Sibley v McHale v
Ruddock v
do act which Intentional Mulitinovic Watson
Taylor [2005]
caused harm (1990) (1964)
McNamara v Holmes v
Intention to do Duncan Mather
deliberate
harm (1971) (1875)
Doing
something Morriss v
Weaver v
without reckless Marsden
Ward (1616)
considering [1952]
consequenves
Not taking
enough care to Williams v
prevent negligent Milotin
foreseeable (1957)
harm occurring
Trespass
requires Hutchins v
directness and is Direct Moughan
not merely [1974]
consequential
Action has
Reynolds v
immediate Immediacy if action
Clarke (1725)
consequence
Trespass as a
natural and Scott v
probable Directness of act Shepherd
consequence of (1773)
the D’s act
Lack of an Southport
Scott v Hutchins v
action severely Lack of intervening Gregory v Corp. v Esso
Shepherd Moughan
altering the act Piper (1829) Petrol. Co.
(1773) [1974]
consequences Ltd [1954]
Continue to specific
torts
3. Battery
Intentional
Direct
Not necessary
body to body, Rv
Contact with Pursell v
missiles and Cotesworth
the body Horn (1838)
indirect contact (1704)
are sufficient
Cole v
Not every touch
A touch in anger Turner
is a battery
(1704)
Different views
Wilson v Rixon v Star
on whether
Hostility Pringle City Pty Ltd
hostility is
[1987] [2001]
required
End
4. Assault
Intention to
create an Brady v
Rixon v Star
apprehension of Schatzel; ex
Intentional City Pty Ltd
imminent harm p Brady
[2001]
=/ intent to [1p11]
follow through
Direct
Threats can
constitute
Act or threat
words or acts or
both
Is debated, no In Ireland, there
Australian Barton v is a precedent R v Ireland
Can words be a
authority, NSW Armstrong for silence [1998]
threat?
has re: [1969] constituting an
telephone assault
Focus is on the NB: there must
As exception,
mind of P MacPherson be an apparent
when D knows P
(assumed to be Apprehension v Beath (in the mind of
to be timid and
a reasonable (1975) P) ability of D to
plays on this
person), not on fulfil threat
the mind of D
Imminence/
immediacy is Apprehension must Zanker v Barton v
important à i.e. be of imminent Vartzokas Armstrong
That the threat harmful contact (1988) [1060]
be unavoidable.
An altered test:
is it reasonable
Limits of Rozsa v Police v Tuberville v
for P to
conditional Samuels Greaves Savage
anticipate
threats [1969] [1964] (1669)
imminent force
if he disobeys?
End
5. False
Imprisonment
Intentional
Direct
Threats can
constitute
Act or threat
words or acts or
both
Is debated, no In Ireland, there
Australian Barton v is a precedent R v Ireland
Can words be a
authority, NSW Armstrong for silence [1998]
threat?
has re: [1969] constituting an
telephone assault
Focus is on the NB: there must
As exception,
mind of P MacPherson be an apparent
when D knows P
(assumed to be Apprehension v Beath (in the mind of
to be timid and
a reasonable (1975) P) ability of D to
plays on this
person), not on fulfil threat
the mind of D
Imminence/
immediacy is Apprehension must Zanker v Barton v
important à i.e. be of imminent Vartzokas Armstrong
That the threat harmful contact (1988) [1060]
be unavoidable.
An altered test:
is it reasonable
Limits of Rozsa v Police v Tuberville v
for P to
conditional Samuels Greaves Savage
anticipate
threats [1969] [1964] (1669)
imminent force
if he disobeys?
End