Internal Assessment 1

Anjali Tripathi
21011139
Law of Torts and Consumer Protection
BA LLB D 2021
Professor Neha Mishra, Professor Pauline L. Forje

Answer 1

Issues:

Under the given circumstances, there are four main issues which arise:
1. Whether Pauline’s actions constitute the elements of battery1 against Sonia.
2. Whether Sonia falsely imprisoned2 Pauline in the toilet.

Rules:

1. The first rule which comes under consideration here is the rule of battery. To make a successful claim
of battery it must have the following elements: (1) an intentional and voluntary act must be made3 ;
(2) by which act contact is made with a claimant’s body4 ; (3) the contact made should be direct; (4)
the contact made must be hostile; (5) the claimant must not have consented to the contact5 . Whether
the claimant suffers any damage or not is irrelevant to the liability6 in a case of battery. It is also said
touching someone’s body even a little bit, in anger, counts as battery.
2. The principle of false imprisonment states that there is no false imprisonment where the claimant
consents. The elements of false imprisonment are: (1) there should be an intentional imprisonment of
the claimant by the defendant, and (2) it should be unlawful7. In the Hepburn v CC Thames Valley

1
WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ, TORT 4-007 (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)
2
WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ, TORT 4-023 (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)
3
Livingstone v Ministry of Defence, [1984]
4
Cole v Turner, [1704]
5
Freeman v Home Office, [1983]

6
Ashley v CC of Sussex [2008]

7
Bird v Jones, (1845) 7 QB 742, 752
 [2002] case, it was mentioned that a claimant is entitled to use force against false imprisonment,
however there is no requirement of resistance on the claimant’s behalf to simply show there is no
consent.

Analysis:

1. In this case, there are two sisters, Sonia and Radhika, who had attended the Glasgow music festival
which is held outdoors and is very popular. As is commonplace in music festivals, it was crowded and
Sonia along with her sister Radhika were standing very close to the main stage. As the festival goers
had been bumping into each other as they sang and danced, Sonia got frustrated due to Josephine, a
girl who had been standing behind her and shoving her elbow into Sonia’s back. This repeated action
of Josephine had led to Sonia feeling angry, and she had turned around to yell at Josephine that she
would make her stop doing that had Radhika, her little sister, not been present with them. Sonia’s
statement had provoked Pauline, Josephine’s friend who had been standing behind her, and thus, she
shoved herself into Sonia hard, which had caused her to tumble into Radhika. Due to this tussle,
Radhika ended up receiving an injury to her knee and ankle, while Sonia was unscathed. Even though
the claimant Sonia received no injuries, a case of battery can be made against the defendant Pauline as
all the elements of battery have been satisfied. Even if we don’t take the elements into accordance,
since Pauline’s anger has been established here, a special precedent8 which states that even the slight
touching of someone’s body in anger counts as battery can be taken into consideration. The reason
why Radhika would not be able to bring a case of battery is because the elements of battery are not
satisfied in her situation, even though injury was caused.
2. Pauline, regardless of having a case against her, could claim a case of false imprisonment against
Sonia. This was caused when Sonia, in trying to avenge her sister Radhika’s injury, locked Pauline in
a toilet. The defendant Sonia had, out of fear, opened the lock and run away when she heard Pauline
calling her friend Josephine. However, this does not excuse the claim of false imprisonment against
her as all the elements apply here. Pauline had tried to open the door once, as a reasonable person
would and even then, according to a previous precedent, it has been established that usage of force is
not required to prove that the imprisonment has not been consented to9. The other element of complete
restraint is also satisfied as there was no evident way of escaping the toilet.

8
Cole v. Turner [1704]
9
Hepburn v CC Thames Valley [2002]
 Conclusion:

According to the facts of the case and rules of law discussed, the court may hold that Pauline will be liable
for a case of battery against Sonia.
However, Sonia might also be considered liable for a case of false imprisonment against Pauline for
locking her in the toilet.
Answer 2

Issues:

The main issues which arise from the given facts are listed below:
1. Whether Lucy can file a case of negligence10 against Mayank for harm caused to her son Jacob.
2. Whether Mayank’s actions constitute the elements of trespass to land11, trespass to chattel and
conversion12 against Priya’s property.
3. Whether a defence of necessity can be used by Mayank to defend against the claims of trespass made
by Priya.
4. If Mayank is liable for causing psychiatric harm13 to Lucy via his actions.

Rules:

1. In order to constitute a law of negligence, the elements required: (1) a duty of care14 which is owed by
the defendant to the claimant; (2) a breach15 of said duty; (3) non-remote damage caused by the breach
of duty.
2. The elements of trespass to land required for it to be a successful claim are: (1) it is a form of
unjustifiable interference with the possession of land; (2) it is actionable per se, therefore, whether the
claimant has suffered any damages doesn’t matter; (3) it is an intentional or negligent act16. Trespass
to chattel (goods) refers to an unlawful disturbance of possession17 of the goods or by a direct act
causing damage to the goods. A trespass to goods is actionable without proof of the actual damage

10
WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ, TORT 5-002 (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)

11
WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ, TORT 14-001 (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)

12
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliot, [1946] (Dickson J)

13
Bourhill v Young (1943)

14
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990]

15
The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967]

16
Fowler v Lanning, [1959]

17
Penfolds Wines Pty Ltd v Elliot, [1946] (Dickson J)
 caused. The occurrence of conversion happens when a defendant wrongfully takes possessions of
goods owned by a claimant, or by wrongfully disposing the goods, by wrongfully misusing them, by
wrongfully destroying them or by wrongfully retaining them when asked for it. There must be a
deliberate act depriving the claimant of his rights. An innocent mistake is not a valid defence18
3. While defence of public necessity is available when the defendant uses reasonable force, private
defence is not a defence used against trespass and the claimant would be entitled to compensation for
the injury caused to the claimant’s property.
4. Under the rules of law mentioned regarding psychiatric injury caused due to negligence, there is a
provision which states a claimant who is a witness of danger to others could also be a secondary
victim19. The elements required for such a case to be claimed are: (1) the claimant must be in a
relationship of close ties of love and affection20 with the person endangered; (2) there must be sufficient
proximity in time and space to the event that resulted in the mental injury; (3) the psychiatric injury
must have been caused by sight or hearing of the event or its immediate aftermath; (4) the psychiatric
injury must be foreseeable. We may apply the eggshell skull21 rule here as well to prove that the
defendant’s liability doesn’t decrease simply because the claimant is more susceptible to emotional
trauma.

Analysis

1. According to the facts of the case mentioned Mayank, who is an experienced outdoorsman, offers to
take his friend’s son Jacob for a hike in the Blue Mountains. The expertise that Mayank has along with
him volunteering to take Jacob establishes his duty of care towards the child. In winters, these
mountains are locally known to have sudden mists which descend from time to time. Mayank breached
his duty of care by not finding out about this important information about the Blue Hills. While they
were on a trail, a sudden storm started which was accompanied by thick snow and horrific winds. This
created a blizzard condition which made the temperature drop rapidly. Mayank breached his duty of
care again, by having forgotten to bring the map and compass, inevitably putting Jacob in danger.
Their phones had no signals, either. Therefore, to find refuge, Mayank started looking for his friend

18
Poggi v Scott [1914]

19
Bourhill v Young (1943)

20
Alcock v CC S Yorkshire [1991]

21
Pyne v Wilkenfeld [1981]
 Saumya’s cabin. Saumya had offered Mayank her cabin in case the need arises. In trying to search for
this, both suffered from the effects of exposure and Jacob even got frostbite. Due to the injury caused
to Jacob, the last element of negligence is also satisfied. Mayank is also negligent in ensuring they are
in the correct cabin and not just one that looks like his friend’s cabin.
2. To help stay warm, Mayank enters the red-roofed cabin he found, and uses the built-in wooden
bookshelves from the wall to build a fire in the fireplace. Due to this unjustifiable interference by
Mayank into the claimant Priya’s home, the first ingredient of trespass to land is indulged. By
unlawfully disturbing Priya’s possession of her goods, and even causing damage to it by direct actions,
Mayank has committed tresspass to chattel as well. Since trespass to land and chattel is actionable per
se, and no intention is required for it to become a successful claim, Priya might be successful in
bringing a case against Mayank. Since the bookshelves and books were wrongfully possessed,
wrongfully misused and wrongfully destroyed, the elements of conversion are also complete.
3. Mayank had entered the cabin without ensuring it was Saumya’s due to a medical emergency and
because of a storm raging outside. However, since this falls under private necessity22, it will not qualify
as a proper defence. Even burning the bookshelves and books for staying warm will not be excused,
regardless of the intention. Mayank did leave a note for his friend Saumya but was negliegent in
mentioning the damage caused to the books as well.
4. Mayank’s friend Lucy is known to be of a nervous disposition. With the help of the eggshell skull
rule, we may ensure that the claimant is able to bring her claim without being counted as an exception.
When Lucy is informed of her son, Jacob’s condition, she suffers from shock. This statement informs
us of Lucy’s maternal relationship of close ties of love and affection with the victim, which is her son,
Jacob, thus qualifying the first element required to qualify as a secondary victim of psychiatric harm
caused due to defendant’s negligence. The next element of there being a sufficient proximity in time
and space to the event that resulted in the mental injury is satisfied as Lucy goes into shock immediately
after hearing about Jacob’s condition. The psychiatric injury was evidently created due to Lucy hearing
about the injury her son underwent, thus appeasing the third requirement for a claim of psychiatric
injury caused to secondary victim due to the defendant, Mayank’s negligence.

Conclusion

After applying the above-mentioned rules, we can conclude:

22
Vincent v Lake Erie Transportation Co. [1910]
 I. The injured parties that are Jacob and his mother Lucy may make and win claims of negligence
which caused injuries to Jacob, and psychiatric harm caused to a secondary victim, i.e., Lucy due
to negligence. Both these claims will be against Lucy’s friend, Mayank.
II. Priya can reasonably raise the following causes of action against Mayank to recover damages:
a. Trespass to Land and Chattel
b. Conversion
III. The one defence which Mayank may use to relieve himself of some compensation is the defence
of private necessity against Priya’s claims. However, he will still be liable to pay the damages.
IV. Compensatory damages23 for the medical bills, emotional harm and trauma caused may be
recovered by Lucy and Jacob.
Aggravated damages24 might be recovered by Priya from Mayank due to Trespass to Land.
However, if the defence of private necessity is brought up, the damages will be required only for
the injury caused to the property via conversion or otherwise.

23
WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ, TORT 23-009 (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)

24
WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ, TORT 23-024 (Sweet & Maxwell 2014)