Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Trespass To A Person (Law)
Trespass To A Person (Law)
Trespass to person
Protects right to physical integrity, dignity, inviolability, sanctity of person
Interference must be international (not intention to harm, intention to commit requisite interference)
Battery – distinction b/w direct, intentional and unintentional (negligence) Letang v Cooper Fowler v Lanning
o Assault, battery, false imprison actionable per se (injuria sine damno), no proof of damage
o Wilkinson v Downtown rule on recklessness, not actionable per se, must prove damage
Assault Collins v Wilcock: act causes another to apprehend infliction of immediate, unlawful force
Assault: P must show reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery (reasonable person test)
Irrelevant whether P afraid or scared (test is what would reasonable person do in situation)
Tort does not exist is battery likely to occur in future, however once there is apprehension of immediate battery,
does not matter if battery never occurs Stephens v Myers
If there is no means of putting threats into effect, no assault Thomas v NUM
Words constitute assault (if reasonable person would apprehend fear) (circumstances: could P see speaker,
nature of words, identity of speaker, accompanying gestures, tone of words, etc.) i.e. “your money or your life
in dark alley” Constanza – apprehension is relevant factor
Silent telephone calls – “a thing said is a thing done” Burstow & Ireland
Words sanitize assault Tuberville v Savage – question of fact, circumstances
Conditional threats constitute assault (“get out or I’ll hurt you”) – person may block exit – test is would
reasonable person apprehend immediate violence
Word and actions Read v Coker, Stephens v Myers
Scott v Shepard continuous actions constitute tort (lighted squib case)
Recklessness Wilkinson v Downton: willfully done act calculated to cause physical harm, does harm
Infringe right to personal safety, physical integrity that operates on sense, right to mental security
Not battery (no force), nor assault (no intent to cause apprehension of force), but should be actionable
If intentional act causes apprehension of fear is wrong, then plainly act that actually causes harm should
likewise be wrong – ought to be tortuous, remain actionable
Upheld Janvier v Sweeney
Not actionable per se must prove damage Burnett v George, Khoransandjian v Bush, Hunter v Cancery,
damage not too remote; defines psychiatric damage R v Chanfwok palpitations, sleepless, anxiety (clinical), not
fear, distress, panic
False Imprisonment: unlawful imposition of restraint on person’s freedom of movement in particular place
Not need for actual imprisonment or force “stone walls do not a prison make” – false means wrongful
Debate whether protects freedom of movement or simply (does obstruction amount to false imprisonment)
Restraint must be total Bird v Jones if P has alternative means, that is reasonable no false imprisonment
P does not have to accommodate specific mode of departure Robinson v Balmain New Ferry
Contract out freedom, D not liable is not w/in agreement Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal, Coke Co
Law places supreme importance on liberty, if P unaware expect nominal damages
o Contrast Meering, Herring v Boyle, and Murray v Min of Defense
Can be imprisoned by show of authority, force Clarke v Davis, Chong v Miller, no physical restraint needed
Alternatives must be practical – contrast Mcollin v DaCosta & Musson Ltd with Bustien reputation diminished
Prisoner not entitled to residual freedom R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison
If P authorized constable Hughes v Mc Clean
FI excess detention Olotu v Home Office
Defenses to FI: Lawful arrest: police may arrest with warrant, private citizen can arrest for breach of peace being
or about to be committed (once breach no longer likely no power to arrest) – all have stake in peace
Lawful arrest R v Self, Walters v Smith guilty of FI b/c no offense proved
Police, private citizen can arrest when there is reasonable suspicion of crime; for private citizen crime must
have been committed, even if not by suspect, no defense D reasonable though person guilty
o Contrast R v Shelf, v Roland v Wiggins, and Walters v Smith
Cumming v Demas could not arrest person for obstructing arrest of another b/c no crime had been committed
Banyasz v K-Mart Canada security guard treated as private citizen
Jango v Gomez statute gave estate constables “all right, powers… privileges, immunities…” as police
Must be told plainly ground for arrest R v Smart unless ground obvious or person’s conduct prevents
Dallison v Caffery police officer not private citizen can do reasonable investigation, before going to station
Must be intentional Sayers v Harlow unintentionally struck in toilet, succeeded in negligence not in FI
D must be brought before magistrate as soon as possible Davis v Renford