Trespass to the person involves the wrongful invasion of an individual's bodily rights or liberty. It has been replaced by the torts of false imprisonment, assault, and battery, which all involve restricting a person's freedom or liberty without lawful justification. False imprisonment involves unlawfully restraining or confining someone against their will. Assault involves threatening or attempting unlawful physical contact that causes the reasonable apprehension of immediate contact. Battery involves the actual unlawful physical contact with another person. Damages can be awarded for these torts even without proof of physical injury.

1. Trespass to the
Person

2. Trespass to the person involves the wrongful
invasion of a persons’ right to freedom from
interference with his body or his right to
personal liberty. This is in contrast to
trespass to land that involves the wrongful
invasion of another’s premises.

3. In modern times, trespass to the person has
been replaced by the three (3) separate torts
of:
1. False Imprisonment
2. Assault
3. Battery

4. False imprisonment, assault and battery involve
the wrongful invasion of a persons right to
freedom and liberty. They all comprise a
category of tort law known as trespass to the
person. All three torts are derived from the old
common law ‘writ of trespass’ and are
actionable per se which means that lawsuits
may commence without the need to prove
actual harm or damage.

5. Assault and battery cases are often brought
against police officers and the Attorney
General. ROOKES v BARNARD held that
where a government servant commits an
arbitrary, oppressive or unconstitutional act
against a member of the public. Punitive
damages may be awarded in addition to
compensatory damages.

6. FALSE
IMPRISONMENT

7. This is the wrongful or unreasonable
restraint of an individual’s liberty [without
lawful justification]. There is NO need to
show damages. For example, police officers
may arrest or detain individual without legal
justification.

8. One’s liberty cannot be restrained without
authority in law or following reasonable
conditions. For example, an exception to this
principle would be the implied
acknowledgement or compliance of passengers
on trains or airplanes with conditions of travel
that restrict movement and freedom. Therefore,
false imprisonment is not to be narrowly
interpreted to include only prisons or jails.

9. False imprisonment deals with:
1. Inconvenience sustained by the
intentional restriction of movement;
2. Total restraint by external limits or
powers, even if it is temporary;
3. Compelled or confined to stay in one
place, against one’s will for which there is
a complete loss of freedom

10. However, an important point to note is that
violence or the actual expression of force is
NOT necessary to commit false
imprisonment. In addition, partial restraint,
obstruction or detention would not be
subject to a successful cause of action for
false imprisonment. The boundary
preventing one from passing can be large,
narrow, moveable or fixed.

11. LAWFUL
JUSTIFICATION

12. The defence for false imprisonment is lawful justification, such as
a lawful arrest. However, an unlawful arrest by a police officer
may result in a cause of action for false imprisonment, as would
battery.

13. CLARKE v DAVIS held that police officers may be
liable where they order a person, without
physically holding him, to accompany them to
the police station, and that person submits to
the show of authority.
Moreover a security guard at a store may
be liable for false imprisonment where there is a
request that a suspected shoplifter accompany
him to the store office, and that person complies
in order to avoid an embarrassing scene in a
public place

14. QUASHIE v AG held that punitive damages as
well as compensatory damages may be
awarded against the Attorney General for
any oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional
act by a government servant, such as a
police officer.

15. In ROBINSON v BALMAIN FERRY COMPANY
LIMITED it was held that the operator of a
ferry that charged a fee to enter and exit the
ferry was not guilty of false imprisonment to
refuse the plaintiff from leaving until the fee
was paid because the refusal was
reasonable.

16. LEBRUN v HIGH-LOW FOODS LIMITED held
that a person may be liable for false
imprisonment though he does not limit
himself carry out the actual arrest. He will be
able liable where he authorizes or direct an
officer to make the arrest, which does not
apply to one who merely makes a report to
the police, who exercise discretion to make
an arrest.

17. TORTIOUS ASSAULT

18. Tortious assault is the calculated threat of violence which
causes reasonable fear of immediate physical contact. Assault
entails conduct reasonably leading to battery, such as:
• Intimidation,
• Apprehension of harm,
• Unlawful contact,
• Manifestation of violent propensities, and
• Threats

19. The test for whether an assault has been committed is whether
a reasonable person would have to fear that violence is
immediate or about to be committed in the circumstances to
constitute assault. [notwithstanding the type of object or
subjective motive of the perpetrator]
For example, the intimidating use of a toy gun against one who
believes the toy to be real may constitute tortious assault.

20. Tortious assault is distinguished from actual tortious battery
which is the physical contact that may occur subsequent to
tortious assault. In other words, tortious assault is the fear of
the battery that may or may not subsequently occur.
For example a clenched fist would constitute the assault, while
the punch is the battery. Individuals do not have the right to give
conditional threats or demands without lawful authorization.

21. However, assault cannot be words alone. There must be some
action or words accompanying action that leads to the
apprehension of physical harm through unlawful contact.
Damages include physical as well as injury to dignity, humiliation
or mental suffering.

22. In STEPHENS v MYERS, an altercation took place between the
plaintiff and the defendant at a parish council meeting. The
defendant approached the plaintiff with a clenched fist but his
blow was intercepted by a third party and the defendant
successfully sued for assault.

23. In HULL v ELLIS the defendant held the revolver in her hand and
accosted the plaintiff while riding his donkey on a public road an
inquired the source of wood he was carrying. It was held that
she committed assault.