lecommittee topic 1-introduction intentional torts 2009 (2)
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
1/48
THE LAW OF TORTS
INTRODUCTION
INTENTIONAL TORTS: TRESPASS
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
2/48
TEXT BOOKS
Stewart & Stuhmcke,Australian Tort Law
*Blay, Torts in a Nutshell LBC 2006
Luntz and Hambly Torts Cases and CommentaryRev. Ed. Butterworths
Sappideen et al Torts Cases Commentary LBC
Balkin and Davies, The Law of Torts
Gibson et al Tort Lawin Principle LBC 20098
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
3/48
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
4/48
Discussion/Question
Tort and Crime
How does a tort differfrom Crime?
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
5/48
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATORT AND A CRIME
A crime is public /community wrong thatgives rise to sanctions usually designated in
a specified code. A tort is a civil privatewrong.
Action in criminal law is usually brought bythe state or the Crown. Tort actions areusually brought by the victims of the tort.
The principal objective in criminal law ispunishment. In torts, it is compensation
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
6/48
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATORT AND A CRIME
Differences in Procedure:
Standard of Proof Criminal law: beyond reasonable
doubt
Torts: on the balance of probabilities
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
7/48
Question
Are there any similaritiesbetween a tort and a crime?
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
8/48
SIMILARITIES BETWEENTORTS AND CRIME
They both arise from wrongs imposed bylaw
Certain crimes are also actionable torts; egtrespass: assault
In some cases the damages in torts may be
punitiveIn some instances criminal law may award
compensation under criminal injuriescompensation legislation.
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
9/48
TORTS DISTINGUISHED FROM
BREACH OF CONTRACTA breach of contract arises from
promises made by the parties
themselves.
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
10/48
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TORTAND CONTRACT
Both tort and breach of contractgive rise to civil suits
In some instances, a breach ofcontract may also be a tort: egan employers failure to providesafe working conditions
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
11/48
Questions
What are the objectives of
tort law?
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
12/48
THE OBJECTIVES OF TORTLAW
Loss distribution/adjustment: shiftinglosses from victims to perpetrators
Compensation: Through the award of(pecuniary) damages
The object of compensation is to place thevictim in the position he/she was before
the tort was committed.
Punishment: through exemplary or punitivedamages. This is a secondary aim.
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
13/48
Question
What interests are protected bythe Law of Torts, and how are
these interests protected?
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
14/48
INTERESTS PROTECTED INTORT LAW
Personal security
Trespass
Negligence
Reputation
Defamation
Property
Trespass
Conversion
Economic and financial interests
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
15/48
SOURCES OF TORT LAW
Common Law: The development of torts by precedent through the
courts
Donoghue v Stevenson
Statute: Thematic statutes: eg Motor Accidents legislation
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
General statutes: eg Civil Liability legislation
The Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
16/48
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
17/48
Intention in Torts
Deliberate or wilful conduct
Constructive intent: where the
consequences of an act aresubstantially certain: theconsequences are intended
Where conduct is reckless
Transferred intent: where Dintends to hit B but misses andhits P
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
18/48
Negligence in Torts
When D is careless in his/herconduct
When D fails to take reasonablecareto avoid a reasonablyforeseeable injuryto another.
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
19/48
STRICT LIABILITY
No faultis required for strictliability
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
20/48
ACTIONS IN TORT LAW
Trespass
Directly caused injuries
Requires no proof of damage
Action on the Case/Negligence
Indirect injuries
Requires proof of damage
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
21/48
THE DOMAIN OF TORTS
TrespassNegligence
Nuisance
DefencesFinancial loss
Conversion Defamation
Breach of statutory duty
Particular Duty Areas
Concurrent liability
Product liability
Liability of public authorities
Vicarious liability
Intentional torts
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
22/48
INTENTIONAL TORTS
INTENATIONAL TORTS
Trespass Conversion/Detinue Defamation
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
23/48
INTENTIONAL TORTS
INTENATIONAL TORTS
Trespass Conversion/Detinue Defamation
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
24/48
WHAT IS TRESPASS?
Intentional act of D whichdirectly causes an injury to the P orhis /her property without lawfuljustificationThe Elements of Trespass:
fault: intentional act
injury* must be caused directly injury* may be to the P or to his/her property
No lawful justification
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
25/48
THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OFTRESPASS
Intentionalact
Specific elementThe nature of the interference
PhysicalThreats
Imprisonment
property
Direct interferencewith person or property
Absence of lawfuljustification+ +
+
=A specific
form of trespass
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
26/48
SPECIFIC FORMS OFTRESPASS
TRESPASS
PERSON PROPERTY
BATTERY
ASSAULT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
27/48
BATTERY
The intentional act of D whichdirectly causes aphysical
interferencewith the body of Pwithout lawful justification
The distinguishing element:physical interference with Ps body
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
28/48
THE INTENTIONAL ACT INBATTERY
No liability without intention
The intentional act = basic willful
act + the consequences.
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
29/48
CAPACITY TO FORM THEINTENT
D is deemed capable of formingintent if he/she understands thenature of (intended) his/her act
-InfantsHart v A. G. of Tasmania( infant
cutting another infant with razor
blade)Lunatics
Morris v Masden
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
30/48
THE ACT MUST CAUSEPHYSICAL INTERFERENCE
The essence of the tort is the protection of theperson of P. Ds act short of physical contact istherefore not a battery
The least touching of another could bebattery
Cole vTurner (dicta per Holt CJ)
The fundamental principle, plain andincontestable, is that every persons body isinviolate ( per Goff LJ, Collins v Wilcock)
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
31/48
The Nature of the PhysicalInterference
Rixon v Star City Casino (D places hand
on Ps shoulder to attract his attention;no battery)Collins v Wilcock (Police officer holds Ds
arm with a view to restraining her when Ddeclines to answer questions and begins towalk away; battery)
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
32/48
SHOULD THE PHYSICALINTERFERENCE BE HOSTILE?
Hostility may establish apresumption of battery; but
Hostility is not material to provingbattery
The issue may revolve on how one
defines hostility
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
33/48
THE INJURY MUST BECAUSED DIRECTLY
Injury should be the immediateTheCase Law:Scott v Shepherd ( Lit squib/fireworks in
market place)
Hutchins vMaughan( poisoned bait leftfor dog)
Southport vEsso Petroleum(Spilt oil onPs beach)
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
34/48
THE ACT MUST BE WITHOUTLAWFUL JUSTIFICATION
Consent is Lawful justification
Consent must be freely given by the P if
P is able to understand the nature of theact
Allen v New Mount Sinai Hospital
Lawful justification includes the lawful
act of law enforcement officers
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
35/48
Battery, Consent and Sports
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerDjw3Lo8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerDjw3Lo8Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerDjw3Lo8Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerDjw3Lo8Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerDjw3Lo8A -
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
36/48
TRESPASS:ASSAULT
The intentional act or threat ofD which directly places P in
reasonable apprehension of animminent physical interferencewith his or her person or of
someone under his or hercontrol
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
37/48
THE ELEMENTS OFASSAULT
There must be a direct threat:
Hall v Fonceca (Threat by P who shook hand in
front of Ds face in an argument)Rozsa v Samuels ( threat to cut P into bits)
In general, mere words are not actionable
Barton v Armstrong
In general, conditional threats are not actionable
Tuberville v Savage
Police v Greaves
Rozsa v Samuels
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
38/48
The apprehension must be reasonable;the test is objective
The interference must be imminentPolicevGreavesRozsa v Samuels
Barton vArmstrongHall v Fonceca
Zanker v Vartzokas (P jumps out of a movingvan to escape from Ds unwanted lift)
THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
39/48
THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OFTRESPASS
Intentional
act
Specific elementThe nature of the interference
PhysicalThreats
Imprisonment
property
Direct interferencewith person or property
Absence of lawfuljustification+ +
+
=A specific
form of trespass
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
40/48
SPECIFIC FORMS OFTRESPASS
TRESPASS
PERSON PROPERTY
BATTERY
ASSAULT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
41/48
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
The intentionalactof D whichdirectly causes the total restraint
of P and thereby confines him/herto a delimited area without lawfuljustification
The essential distinctive elementis the total restraint
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
42/48
THE ELEMENTS OF THETORT
It requires all the basic elements oftrespass:
Intentional actDirectness
absence of lawful justification/consent
, and total restraint
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
43/48
RESTRAINT IN FALSEIMPRISONMENT
The restraint must be total
Bird vJones (passage over bridge)
The Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson
Total restraint implies the absence of areasonable means of escape
Burton vDavies (D refuses to allow P out of car)
Restraint may be total where D subjects P tohis/her authority with no option to leave
Symes vMahon (police officer arrests P by mistake)
Myer Stores v Soo
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
44/48
FORMS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT
See the following Cases:
Cowell v. Corrective ServicesCommissioner of NSW(1988) Aust. Torts
Reporter 81-197.Louis v. The Commonwealth of Australia
87 FLR 277.
Lippl v. Haines & Another (1989) Aust.
Torts Reporter 80-302; (1989) 18NSWLR 620.
Dickenson Waters
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
45/48
VOLUNTARY CASES
In general, there is no FI where onevoluntarily submits to a form of restraint
HerdvWerdale (D refuses to allow P out of mine
shaft)Robison v The Balmain New Ferry Co. (D refuses
to allow P to leave unless P pays fare)
Lippl vHaines
Where there is no volition for restraint, theconfinement may be FI (Bahner vMarwest HotelsCo.)
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
46/48
WORDS AND FALSEIMPRISONMENT
In general, words can constitute FI
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
47/48
KNOWLEDGE IN FALSEIMPRISONMENT
The knowledge of the P at themoment of restraint is not essential.
Merring v Graham White AviationMurray vMinistry of Defense
-
8/13/2019 LECommittee Topic 1-Introduction Intentional Torts 2009 (2)
48/48
THE BURDEN OF PROOF INTRESPASS
The traditional position in CommonLaw:
The D bears the burden of disproving faultThe Highway exception
Off highway: D disproves fault
In highway trespass: P proves fault