TEXT BOOKS *Baker, Blay et al Torts Law in Principle LBC 2002 *Baker, Blay et al Torts Law in Principle LBC 2002 *Blay, Torts in a Nutshell LBC 1999 *Blay, Torts in a Nutshell LBC 1999 Balkin & Davis Law of Torts (2004) 3rd Ed. Butterworths Balkin & Davis Law of Torts (2004) 3rd Ed. Butterworths Luntz and Hambly Torts Cases and Commentary (2002) 5 th Ed. Butterworths Luntz and Hambly Torts Cases and Commentary (2002) 5 th Ed. Butterworths Trindade and Cane The Law of Torts Trindade and Cane The Law of Torts Fleming, The Law of Torts (1996) Fleming, The Law of Torts (1996) Swanton, McDonald and Anderson, Cases on Torts 3rd ed. Federation Press 2002 Swanton, McDonald and Anderson, Cases on Torts 3rd ed. Federation Press 2002

LEC Torts Website materials.htmhttp:// materials.htmhttp:// materials.htmhttp:// materials.htm

WHAT IS A TORT? A tort is a civil wrong A tort is a civil wrong That (wrong) is based a breach of a duty imposed by law That (wrong) is based a breach of a duty imposed by law Which (breach) gives rise to a (personal) civil right of action for for a remedy not exclusive to another area of law Which (breach) gives rise to a (personal) civil right of action for for a remedy not exclusive to another area of law

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TORT AND A CRIME A crime is public /community wrong that gives rise to sanctions usually designated in a specified code. A tort is a civil ‘private’ wrong. A crime is public /community wrong that gives rise to sanctions usually designated in a specified code. A tort is a civil ‘private’ wrong. Action in criminal law is usually brought by the state or the Crown. Tort actions are usually brought by the victims of the tort. Action in criminal law is usually brought by the state or the Crown. Tort actions are usually brought by the victims of the tort. The principal objective in criminal law is punishment. In torts, it is compensation The principal objective in criminal law is punishment. In torts, it is compensation

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TORT AND A CRIME Differences in Procedure: Differences in Procedure: – Standard of Proof » Criminal law: beyond reasonable doubt » Torts: on the balance of probabilities

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TORTS AND CRIME They both arise from wrongs imposed by law They both arise from wrongs imposed by law Certain crimes are also actionable torts; eg trespass: assault Certain crimes are also actionable torts; eg trespass: assault In some cases the damages in torts may be punitive In some cases the damages in torts may be punitive In some instances criminal law may award compensation under criminal injuries compensation legislation. In some instances criminal law may award compensation under criminal injuries compensation legislation.

TORTS DISTINGUISHED FROM BREACH OF CONTRACT A breach of contract arises from promises made by the parties themselves. A breach of contract arises from promises made by the parties themselves. In contract, the amount of damages is usually liquidated or predetermined. Torts damages are usually unliquidated In contract, the amount of damages is usually liquidated or predetermined. Torts damages are usually unliquidated

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TORT AND CONTRACT Both tort and breach of contract give rise to civil suits Both tort and breach of contract give rise to civil suits In some instances, a breach of contract may also be a tort: eg an employer’s failure to provide safe working conditions In some instances, a breach of contract may also be a tort: eg an employer’s failure to provide safe working conditions

THE AIMS OF TORT LAW Loss distribution/adjustment: shifting losses from victims to perpetrators Loss distribution/adjustment: shifting losses from victims to perpetrators Compensation: Through the award of (pecuniary) damages Compensation: Through the award of (pecuniary) damages – The object of compensation is to place the victim in the position he/she was before the tort was committed. Punishment: through exemplary or punitive damages. This is a secondary aim. Punishment: through exemplary or punitive damages. This is a secondary aim.

INTERESTS PROTECTED IN TORT LAW Personal security Personal security – Trespass – Negligence Reputation Reputation – Defamation Property Property – Trespass – Conversion Economic and financial interests Economic and financial interests

LIABILITY IN TORT LAW Liability = responsibility Liability = responsibility Liability may be based on fault or it may be strict Liability may be based on fault or it may be strict Fault liability: the failure to live up to a standard through an act or omission. Fault liability: the failure to live up to a standard through an act or omission. – Venning v Chin – Platt v Nutt Types of fault liability: Types of fault liability: NEGLIGENCE INTENTION FAULT LIABILITY

Intention in Torts Deliberate or wilful conduct Deliberate or wilful conduct ‘Constructive’ intent: where the consequences of an act are substantially certain: the consequences are intended ‘Constructive’ intent: where the consequences of an act are substantially certain: the consequences are intended Where conduct is reckless Where conduct is reckless Transferred intent: where D intends to hit ‘B’ but misses and hits ‘P’ Transferred intent: where D intends to hit ‘B’ but misses and hits ‘P’

Negligence in Torts When D is careless in his/her conduct When D is careless in his/her conduct When D fails to take reasonable care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable injury to another. When D fails to take reasonable care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable injury to another.

STRICT LIABILITY No fault is required for strict liability No fault is required for strict liability

ACTIONS IN TORT LAW Trespass Trespass – Direct injuries – Requires no proof of damage Action on the Case/Negligence Action on the Case/Negligence – Indirect injuries – Requires proof of damage

INTENTIONAL TORTS INTENATIONAL TORTS Trespass ConversionDetinue

WHAT IS TRESPASS? Intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes an injury to the P or his /her property without lawful justification Intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes an injury to the P or his /her property without lawful justification The Elements of Trespass: The Elements of Trespass: – fault: intentional or negligent act – injury* must be direct – injury* may be to the P or to his/her property – No lawful justification

*INJURY IN TRESPASS Injury = a breach of right, not necessarily actual damage Injury = a breach of right, not necessarily actual damage Trespass requires only proof of injury not actual damage Trespass requires only proof of injury not actual damage

THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS Intentional/ negligent act “x” element Direct interference with person or property Absence of lawful justification = A specific form of trespass

SPECIFIC FORMS OF TRESPASS TRESPASS PERSON PROPERTY BATTERY ASSAULT FALSE IMPRISONMENT

BATTERY The intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes a physical interference with the body of P without lawful justification The intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes a physical interference with the body of P without lawful justification The distinguishing element: physical interference with P’s body The distinguishing element: physical interference with P’s body

THE INTENTIONAL ACT IN BATTERY No liability without intention No liability without intention The intentional act = basic willful act + the consequences. The intentional act = basic willful act + the consequences.

CAPACITY TO FORM THE INTENT D is deemed capable of forming intent if he/she understands the nature of (‘intended’) his/her act D is deemed capable of forming intent if he/she understands the nature of (‘intended’) his/her act -Infants -Infants – Lunatics – Morriss v Marsden [1952] – Hart v A. G. of Tasmania ( infant cutting another infant with razor blade)

THE ACT MUST CAUSE PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE The essence of the tort is the protection of the person of P. D’s act short of physical contact is therefore not a battery The essence of the tort is the protection of the person of P. D’s act short of physical contact is therefore not a battery The least touching of another could be battery The least touching of another could be battery – Cole v Turner (dicta per Holt CJ) ‘The fundamental principle, plain and incontestable, is that every person’s body is inviolate’ ( per Goff LJ, Collins v Wilcock) ‘The fundamental principle, plain and incontestable, is that every person’s body is inviolate’ ( per Goff LJ, Collins v Wilcock)

The Nature of the Physical Interference Rixon v Star City Casino (D places hand on P’s shoulder to attract his attention; no battery) Rixon v Star City Casino (D places hand on P’s shoulder to attract his attention; no battery) Collins v Wilcock ( Police officer holds D’s arm with a view to restraining her when D declines to answer questions and begins to walk away; battery) Collins v Wilcock ( Police officer holds D’s arm with a view to restraining her when D declines to answer questions and begins to walk away; battery) – Platt v Nutt

SHOULD THE PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE BE HOSTILE? Hostility may establish a presumption of battery; but Hostility may establish a presumption of battery; but Hostility is not material to proving battery Hostility is not material to proving battery – Wilson v Pringle ( The ration in this case is questionable) The issue may revolve on how one defines ‘hostility’ The issue may revolve on how one defines ‘hostility’

THE INJURY MUST BE CAUSED DIRECTLY Injury should be the immediate The Case Law: Injury should be the immediate The Case Law: – Scott v Shepherd (Lit squib/fireworks in market place) – Hutchins v Maughan (poisoned bait left for dog) – Southport v Esso Petroleum (Spilt oil on P’s beach)

THE ACT MUST BE WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION Consent is Lawful justification Consent is Lawful justification Consent must be freely given by the P if P is able to understand the nature of the act Consent must be freely given by the P if P is able to understand the nature of the act – Allen v New Mount Sinai Hospital Lawful justification includes the lawful act of law enforcement officers Lawful justification includes the lawful act of law enforcement officers – Wilson v. Marshall (D accused of assaulting police officer, held officer’s conduct not lawful)

TRESPASS:ASSAULT The intentional/negligent act or threat of D which directly places P in reasonable apprehension of an imminent physical interference with his or her person or of someone under his or her control The intentional/negligent act or threat of D which directly places P in reasonable apprehension of an imminent physical interference with his or her person or of someone under his or her control

THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT There must be a direct threat: There must be a direct threat: – Hall v Fonceca ( Threat by P who shook hand in front of D’s face in an argument) – Rozsa v Samuels ( threat to cut P into bits) In general, mere words are not actionable In general, mere words are not actionable – B arton v Armstrong In general, conditional threats are not actionable In general, conditional threats are not actionable – Tuberville v Savage – Police v Greaves – Rozsa v Samuels

The apprehension must be reasonable; the test is objective The apprehension must be reasonable; the test is objective The interference must be imminent Police v Greaves The interference must be imminent Police v Greaves – Rozsa v Samuels – Barton v Armstrong – Hall v Fonceca – Zanker v Vartzokas ( P jumps out of a moving van to escape from D’s unwanted lift) THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT

THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS Intentional/ negligent act “x” element Direct interference Absence of lawful justification = A specific form of trespass

SPECIFIC FORMS OF TRESPASS TRESPASS PERSON PROPERTY BATTERY ASSAULT FALSE IMPRISONMENT

The intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes the total restraint of P and thereby confines him/her to a delimited area without lawful justification The intentional or negligent act of D which directly causes the total restraint of P and thereby confines him/her to a delimited area without lawful justification The essential distinctive element is the total restraint The essential distinctive element is the total restraint

THE ELEMENTS OF THE TORT THE ELEMENTS OF THE TORT It requires all the basic elements of trespass: It requires all the basic elements of trespass: – Intentional/negligent act – Directness – absence of lawful justification/consent, and total restraint total restraint

RESTRAINT IN FALSE IMPRISONMENT The restraint must be total The restraint must be total – Bird v Jones (passage over bridge ) – The Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson Total restraint implies the absence of a reasonable means of escape Total restraint implies the absence of a reasonable means of escape – Burton v Davies (D refuses to allow P out of car) Restraint may be total where D subjects P to his/her authority with no option to leave Restraint may be total where D subjects P to his/her authority with no option to leave – Symes v Mahon (police officer arrests P by mistake) – Myer Stores v Soo

FORMS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT See the following Cases: See the following Cases: – Cowell v. Corrective Services Commissioner of NSW (1988) Aust. Torts Reporter ¶ – Louis v. The Commonwealth of Australia 87 FLR 277. – Lippl v. Haines & Another (1989) Aust. Torts Reporter ¶80-302; (1989) 18 NSWLR 620. – Dickenson Waters

VOLUNTARY CASES In general, there is no FI where one voluntarily submits to a form of restraint In general, there is no FI where one voluntarily submits to a form of restraint – Herd v Werdale (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 v Haines Where there is no volition for restraint, the confinement may be FI ( Bahner v Marwest Hotels Co.) Where there is no volition for restraint, the confinement may be FI ( Bahner v Marwest Hotels Co.)

WORDS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT In general, words can constitute FI In general, words can constitute FI

KNOWLEDGE IN FALSE IMPRISONMENT The knowledge of the P at the moment of restraint is not essential. The knowledge of the P at the moment of restraint is not essential. – Merring v Graham White Aviation – Murray v Ministry of Defense