1. LW 2103 Law of Tort Fact Issue Rules Application Conclusion

2. Fact Hugo quarreled with the couple, Tim and Claudia over the renting of Hugo’s flat Hugo threw a pair of scissors at Tim Tim dodged But they hit Claudia

3. Issue Can Tim bring a legal action to Hugo, even though he was not hit? Can Claudia bring a legal action to Hugo? If yes, in what legal reasons?

4. Rules Both assault and battery –An act must be direct and intentional –Proof of damage is not required

5. Rules Definition of “Assault” –any direct and intentional act or conduct of the defendant which puts a reasonable man in apprehension of an imminent physical contact with his body

6. Rules “Assault” –The defendant actually attempts to strike the plaintiff but fails –The defendant does not make any actual attempt but apparently prepares for an assault –Only threatening words are uttered but both parties are not in presence of each other

7. Rules Case – Assault Turberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3 I de s et ux v W de s (1348), Year Books Liber Assisarum s 99, p 60

8. Rules Case – Turberville v Savage It was held that the words negatived what would otherwise have been an assault The defendant himself made it clear that he would not attack the plaintiff

9. Rules Case -- I de s et ux v W de s Typical assault case It was held that where the defendant struck at the plaintiff with a hatchet but missed her, it was assault.

10. Rules Definition of “Battery” –any direct and intentional application of force by the defendant to the person of the plaintiff –to protect a person against all unpermitted contacts irrespective of whether there is any physical harm or insult

11. Rules Battery requires some positive act, as opposed to a mere omission, resulting in actual physical contact with the plaintiff’s body

12. Rules Case – Battery Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440 Pursell v Horn (1838) 8 Ad & E1 602

13. Rules Case – Collins v Wilcock The fundamental principle that every person’s body is inviolate…. This is a question of physical contact which is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of everyday life.

14. Rules Case – Wilson v Pringle …. Hostility was not to be construed as malice or ill-will and would be a question of fact in each case. The act of touching in itself might display hostility….

15. Rules Case -- Pursell v Horn The application of force need not be flesh to flesh but may be effected through other means, such as striking the plaintiff with a knife or other objects.

16. Application Prima facie –Hugo has committed assault to Tim, and –Committed battery to Claudia

17. Application In Tim’s situation –The defendant, Hugo, actually attempts to strike the plaintiff but fails –Similar to the case of I de s et ux v W de s (1348), the defendant was liable to assault even though the attack missed

18. Application The case of Turberville v Savage may not be applied –What the defendant did was actually hit Tim, not through threatening words

19. Application In Claudia’s situation Hugo did use direct and intentional application of force by the defendant to the person of the plaintiff

20. Conclusion From prima facie evidence –Tim can sue Hugo on the ground of assault –Claudia can sue Hugo on the ground of battery