LAW OF TORTS QUESTION ONE (a)State the difference between intentional and unintentional tort. Illustrate your answer with examples. (b)Explain briefly the operations of assault and battery as examples of intentional torts. Are there any defences for a defendant who is being sued for assault or battery by a plaintiff?

LAW OF TORTS QUESTION TWO (a)Explain the meaning of the term ‘defamation’. State the elements required in order to establish a case of defamation against a defendant by a plaintiff. (b)State briefly the defences available for someone who is being sued for defamation.

LAW OF TORTS QUESTION ONE Answer Plan: (a & b) Address the meaning of the two terms- this will go on to show the difference between the two. Make use of illustrations in giving the meaning of these two terms Address the meaning of the two terms i.e. assault and battery. Address the operations of these two concepts i.e. the elements required in order to establish a case of assault and battery by the plaintiff against the defendant. Address the defences available to a defendant who is being sued for assault or battery by a plaintiff. Conclusion.

LAW OF TORTS Question One Answer: (Part a) Introduction & the body: An intentional tort is a voluntary act where the wrongdoer intended to bring about a specific consequence or where he knows, or should know, that the consequences will occur. In other words, intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Examples of intentional torts/torts against person are: trespass to person like assault & battery, false imprisonment, defamation, etc. On the other hand, unintentional tort is a tort where the intention of the wrongdoer is said not to matter. In other words, it is a tort that arises as a result of a breach of duty of care imposed on the defendant by law. Examples of unintentional torts are: negligence (see the case of Donoghue v Stevenson and strict liabilities (see the case of Rylands v Fletcher)

LAW OF TORTS Question One (Part b) Answer: Introduction: Assault- may be defined as an intentional and direct act of the defendant which causes the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of immediate infliction of a force onto his person. In other words, it is an intentional act that creates in another person a reasonable apprehension or fear of immediate harmful or offensive contact. (See the case of R v St. George). On the other hand, battery-may be defined as the intentional and direct application of force to another person without that person’s consent. This touching need not necessarily involve violence. In other words, it is an intentional and harmful or offensive physical contact. It is important to note that a physical injury need not occur and whether the contact is offensive is determined by the reasonable person standard.

LAW OF TORTS Question One (Part b) Answer: The body In order to establish an act of assault, the plaintiff must establish elements such as: (a) The mental state of the D. He/she must have the intention to do his/her act; (b) Effect on the P- P must feel reasonable apprehension that a force will be inflicted upon him. It is determined by an objective test; (c) Capability to carry out the threat; and (d) Bodily movement. As to battery, the plaintiff must establish elements such as: (a) The mental state of the D- He/she must apply the force with intention; (b) The D’s act was under his control- His/her act must be done voluntarily- See the case of Gibbon v Pepper- where the D was riding a horse when someone hit the horse from behind, causing the horse to bolt. The horse collided with the P. (c) Contact- there will be no battery if there is no contact or application of force with P’s body or clothing; and (d) Without the P’s consent- One cannot touch another person without his consent or without lawful justification.

LAW OF TORTS Question One (Part b) Answer: The body: As to the defences, there are defences for both assault and battery and the defences are: (a) consent- where a person consents to an act that damages him/her there is generally no liability for the damage (see the case of Chatterton v Gerson-where the court refused to agree with the argument of the plaintiff); (b) self defence-an individual who is defending his or her life or physical well-being; (c) defence of others-an individual can act in a reasonable manner to protect others who are in real or apparent danger; (d) defence of property-reasonable force may be used in attempting to remove intruders from one’s home, although deadly force can never be used just to protect property.

LAW OF TORTS Question One (Part b) Answer: Conclusion Intentional torts against persons/trespass against person is meant to protect individuals or persons from any forms of threat or force to their body, goods, etc. Apart from that, it is also to protect their honour, dignity and reputation as well. However, regardless of its purpose, there are defences for a defendant who is being sued for say trespass to person in the context of assault or battery.

LAW OF TORTS Question Two Answer Plan: (Part a & b) Address the meaning of the term defamation. Address briefly the elements required in order to establish a case of defamation. Address very briefly the defences available for someone being sued for defamation. Conclusion.

LAW OF TORTS Question Two (Part a) Answer: Introduction & the body It is intentionally harming another’s good reputation through false statements. In other words, defamation is the publication of a statement which affects a person’s reputation in that it tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally by making them shun or avoid him. The statements may be oral (slander) or written (libel) in nature. All in all, the statement must be published (communicated to a third party). Anyone who republishes or repeats a defamatory statement is also liable for defamation. As to the elements required in order to establish a case of defamation, they are: (a) the words must be defamatory (to be defamatory the words must first tend to lower the P’s reputation in the estimation of right-minded persons, or must tend to cause him to be shunned or avoided); (b) they must refer to the plaintiff (if the P is mentioned by name, it can be easily proven. It is not necessary that the D should have intended to refer to the P); and they must be ‘maliciously’ published (communication of the words to at least one person other than the person defamed. Communication to the P himself is not enough, for defamation is an injury to one’s reputation, and reputation is what other people think of a man, and not his own opinion of himself. In defamation the law presumes malice from the mere act of the D publishing such defamatory matter. (See the case of Adams v Ward- where Lord Finley said: “…from the mere publication of defamatory matter malice is implied, unless the publication was on what is called a privileged occasion”.

LAW OF TORTS Question Two (Part b) Answer: The body: Point out that as to the defences, there are a number of defences available to someone who is being sued for defamation and they are: (a) justification (telling the truth)- see the case of Mirror Newspapers Ltd v. Harrison; (b) qualified privilege; (c) absolute privilege (see section 11(1) of the Defamation Act 1957 and also Art 63(2) & (3) and Art 72(2) and (3) of the Federal Constitution); (d) fair comment; (e) the matter commented on is of public interest (it must be an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact; the comment must be fair; and the comment must not be malicious i.e. with an evil motive.

LAW OF TORTS Question Two (Part b) Answer: Conclusion The law of defamation is meant to protect the honour, dignity and reputation of the victim (plaintiff). However, there are defences whereby it becomes necessary to weigh the pros and cons of the defendant i.e. whether public interest demands the defendant do so (act of saying what he said).