Torts Week 1

Intentional Torts

Trespass, direct connection between wrongful act and person/property
Action on case, indirect/consequential damages as a result of action. log on
highway.
Dominant tort is negligence: action on the case.
Intentional torts (person, land, chattels/goods etc)
Directness
o Hutchins v Maughan, P brought dogs onto land filled with poisoned
baits after informed by D. Consequential, no trespass.
o Scott v Shepard, where injury is immediate (trespass), consequential,
remedy is (in case). Firecracker eg middlemen involuntarily passed
on danger D initiated. Trespass immediacy.
o Letang v Cooper, distinguishes between trespass and negligence.
Factor is intention, not directness. If intended = tort of assault. If
negligent = tort of negligence. Shot bullet and ricochet example. This
(English) view not asserted in Australia.
Fault
o Trespass, simply intending to interfere (not result or intent to cause
harm). Must be voluntary; Epileptic fit on railway Public Transport
Commission (NSW) v Perry.
o Fault can be intentional or negligent (D reasonable care).
Negligent trespass vs negligence -> Williams v Milotin
Damage
o Proof of damage not required in trespass touching as battery -, yes
for action for case.
o Plenty v Dillon, no proof of damage, however protection of P rights to
land and liberty are honored to prevent anarchist trend.
o Re. chattels, based on principle repeatedly touching art - any
interference suffices as trespass.
Onus Of Proof
o In trespass, D must prove no fault/intent.

Intentional Interference With Person

Battery
o Intentional contact with another person w/o consent.
o Trespass established by positive act, however can also be by omission
of act (one continuous positive act), Fagan v Metropolitan Police
Commissioner
o P must prove act was direct; D must prove act neither intentional nor
negligent.
o Battery need not be in hostility for eg, surgical treatment beyond
consent
o Brian Rixon v Star City, act was for engaging P attention and ordinary
conduct in everyday life - not unlawful.


Torts Week 1
Assault
o Determined by reasonable apprehension of imminent contact with
regard to circumstances.
o Without lawful excuse, a voluntary act, intentionally or carelessly,
creates in the P the apprehension of imminent harmful direct contact.
The assault must also be the immediate and direct result of Ds act.
o D must have the means or actual ability to carry out the threat
(Stephens v Myers), or the apparent present ability to carry out the
threat (Brady v Schatzel).
o P need not be in fear (Brady v Schatzel).
o Sufficient if the threat would arouse an expectation of unlawful
contact, or fear, in the mind of a reasonable person unless D knows of
a plaintiffs particular sensitivity (Bunyan v Jordan).
o P must be aware of the threat (R v Phillips)
o In some cases, words may neutralise the physical threat (Tuberville v
Savage)
o In some cases, words alone can amount to assault (Barton v
Armstrong).
o Assault requires intent to use/apprehend force in the mind of P. Rixon
v Star City, no force to cause injury, no intention of imminent harmful
contact.
False Imprisonment
o Depriving liberty without lawful justification.
o Actionable per se: no proof of damage
o Total imprisonment - no room for free movement. Bird v Jones
(obstruction)
o No reasonable means of escape required (Burton v Davies)
o Must be against Ps will (Myer Stores v Soo)
o P need not be aware of the imprisonment (Myer Stores v Soo)
o Terms imply liberty is held pending a condition, Balmain New Ferry
o Restraint need not be physical, eg where P submits to Ds control in
the belief that the D has lawful authority to detain and that any
attempt to escape will be prevented (Symes v Mahon, and Myer Stores v
Soo).

Action On The Case For Intentional Harm

Workplace harassment, sexual harassment, mental distress etc
Wilkinson v Downton, D willfully calculated act to cause physical harm to P.
Indirect & intentional.
Fault established as Ds act calculated to produce an effect (intention)
anticipated.