Intentional/negligent and unpermitted physical contact with a person’s body
Download 41.89 Kb.
|
|
TORTS MAKOLA APOR BATTERY Intentional/negligent and unpermitted physical contact with a person’s body. Six elements in an action for battery. -Direct Act; The plaintiff must prove that the predicament flowed from the defendant’s act SCOTT V SHEPHARD (KNOCK OUT CASE) 3 people starting from the defendant had to throw the (squib) knock out Held: that the other 2 persons who threw the knock out carried out the original act of the defendant out of compulsive necessity LEAME V BRAY (Carriage) D’s carriage run into P’s cause injury to P. Liable D. COVEL V LAMMING (Ship case , steering) -Voluntary: Must be in control GIBBONS V PEPPER (Horse case) D whipped the horse and the horse injured people -State of mind; P must be intentional/ negligent LEATANG V COOPER (sunbathing, car pass on her leg) Statute bared FOWLER V LANNING P said D shot him. D said P did not prove that the act was intentional or negligent by his statement of claim. It was held there was no cause of action since he did not plead it in his statement of claim. STANLEY V POWELL The D shot at a bird(pheasant) but it glanced off an oak tree and hit the plaintiff. -Physical contact; Physical contact with the person of the plaintiff FAGAN V METROPOLITAN POLICE COMMISSIONER(car pass on the leg of the constable) Either body to body /instrument to body. R V COTESWORTH ( SPIT) -Lack of consent- no consent in EXPRESS CONSENT: Expressly stated NASH V SHEEN (permanent wave turn dye) There was no consent for the dye, IMPLIED CONSENT COLE V TURNER-Holt CJ The least touching of another in anger is battery. Desire to get an advantage over produces a violent shove is battery PRIVILEGED CONTACT WIFFIN V KINCARD ( CONSTABLE STAFF) D didn’t commit battery because using his staff was consent out of privilege -Positive act- you must do something and not refrain from doing something. INNES V WILEY(club bouncer) P was expelled from club but he still wanted to enter and the police man pushed back when the P tried to enter. D, the bouncer was liable but if he was just standing in the way he would not have been liable -Denman J BATTERY IS ACTIONABLE PER SE COBBOLD V GRAND AGBOVI V SETORDZI ASSAULT
Assault has all the elements of battery except physical contact. He must also have the means to slap you. Ability to carry out act READ V COKER (Threaten to break his neck) The defendant was held to have committed assault because they were actually possessed with the means to carry out the threat. STEPHEN V MYERS(Clenched fist against board chairman) D committed assault because he had the means had he not been stopped MORTON V SHOPPEE(Chase the P with whip, P escaped) D was liable because he had the ability to execute the threat though he escaped. Apprehension BLAKE V BARNARD: It was held there was no assault because the gun was not loaded MILLER V AG-Pointing a gun whether loaded one R v St George -same as the above but adding the facts that if the P knew that the gun was empty, there will be no assault. BRUCE V DYER- Confirms the principle in St George and Miller. MERE WORDS? MEADE V BELT(came to sing threatening songs , Meade came out to shoot ) Words were not assault. R V WILSON (Get out knives)- Words cannot be assault provided the words causes fear of imminent danger Words accompanying an act can negate an assault. TUBERVILE V SAVAGE (If it were not assize time, I would not take such a language from you, …he put his hand on his sword) No assault. Assault is actionable per se MALECIOUS PROSECUTION
D initiated a prosecution against P It was done by D or he instigated/procured/directed/actively instrumented it. SOADWAH V OBENG (break in thief, info by uncle and son, ACP was the appellant) Respondent failed to prove as the evidence showed that it was the appellant and not the police who instigated he action. Knowingly make a false complain resulting a prosecution, this element is still satisfied. MUSA V LIMO-WULANA Merely accompanying a police to arrest someone in the form of assisting, it does not amount to initiating a prosecution. NKRUMMAH V FOLI However, pointing a person leading to prosecution when assisting the police will lead to malicious prosecution. MARTIN V WATSON. DANBY V BEARDSEY It ended in P’s favour BASE-BE V MATHEWS(D alleged P abused her , he was convicted and late brought a suit in malicious prosecution) All termination be termination so far as it is the same offence you were charged of. For example robbery to stealing BOALER V HOLDER Conviction on a first instance and a latter acquittal is a termination in favour of the P. MALEK KHOURY V TABBARA Nolle Prosequi by AG is termination in the termination in P’s favour. MALEK KHOURY V TABBARA GODDARD V SMITH NANA AKUAMOAH V YEBOAH (private prosecution, SC. Said the entry of nolle prosequi was termination, Malicious prosecution will lie) D undertook the prosecution with no probable for reasonable cause. No honest believe in the P probable guilt. He could have such a belief but an ordinary prudent and cautious man won’t make that conclusion. HICKS V FAULKNER explains reasonable and probable cause. An honest belief that the accused is guilty that a reasonable and prudently cautious man having the surrounding circumstances will reach the same conclusion of being guilty. YEBOAH V BOATENG. Malicious intent Show that it was from malice. Its not only from ill will or spite but anything that is not purposed at brining a criminal to justice. GLINSKI V MCLYER Devlin reiterated the principle above. Performance of a duty Suffered damage as a result of the prosecution SAVILLE V ROBERTS (HOLT CJ) Types of damage -damage to the person’s name, reputation - to his person -to his property- charges and expenses for his defence is included NANA AKUAMOAH V YEBOAH Malicious prosecution only lies in criminal matters but can apply in civil cases in Bankruptcy and winding up TRESPASS TO LAND -QUARE CLASSUM FREGIT Direct interference with property in the possession of another. Trespass to the airspace PICKERING V RUDD (Signboard case) Was not trespass-Ellenborough Contrast with KELSEN V IMPERIAL TOBACCO COMPANY (Signboard case) McNair said it was trespass ELLIS V LOFTUS IRON COMPANY (Stallion and the mare) mouth protruded through the fence to bite the mare, The extent of the trespass doesn’t matter. TRESPASS TO THE SUB-SOIL Trespass to the subsoil can guarantee an action in trespass to land. COX V MOUlSEY TRESPASS TO SURFACE Leaning a ladder on a wall-WESTRIPP V BALDOCK HARRISON V DUKE OF RUTLAND (Pursuing game continuously into D’s land, P sued for false imprisonment and was countersued for trespass) ELEMENTS Subject matter of trespass is land and everything attached to it. If own the land, you own airspace and everything wey dey beneath. DIRECT ACT- The act must be direct. KELSEN V IMPERIAL TOBACCO. POSITIVE ACT- Omission to act does not amount to trespass to land. KELSEN V IMPERIAL TOBACCO. PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE LAVENDA V BETTS (D removed doors and windows, D liable) Physical interference with the land of a person is trespass. Contrast with PERERA V VANDIYAR (D cut electricity and gas supply, D was not liable) There is no physical interference with the subject matter, then no trespass ROBSON V HALLET D does not need to enter the land physically but throwing objects/foreign material in the land, it amounts to direct act. LACK OF CONSENT-Entry with a license becomes a trespass only when a person remains on a land after haven been sacked. HURST V PICTURE THEATRE LTD ( D sacked P from a theatre under a mistaken believe that he had not paid) The purchaser of a ticket for a performance The license should not be revoked arbitrarily. However, they trespassed against his body. COWELL V ROSEHILL RACE COURSE CO LTD (ticket to watch a race, he didn’t pay) …remainder on land after revocation of the ticket amounted to trespass…. this case is preferred to the Hurst case. VOLUNTARY – must be in the control of the person. It is immaterial that D knew he was trespassing but if through others he trespasses, those others will be liable for trespass. SMITH V STONES D was carried to land against his wish. No trespass but by those who forced him. Mistake is not a defence in trespass. BASELY V CLARKSON D mistakenly mowed grass on P’s land, there was trespass. Intention of the trespass does not matter provided the act was voluntary. STATE OF MIND Negligently or intentionally Who may sue in trespass? The person who is in possession of the land at the time the trespass was committed. MANCHESTER AIRPORT PLC V DUTTON Any person who possesses land de facto can sue a trespasser WUTA OFFEI V DANKWAH P acquired land and built pillars and D built on it, D trespassed Proof of ownership is prima facie is proof of possession so is occupation. MENSAH V PENIANA-when there are two trespassers , the D will prevail. GRAHAM V PETE 0-P was in possession under a void statute. WIREDU V MIM TIMBER -A person in possession of land though he himself a trespasser can prevent other NUNEPEKU V AMETEPE Mere use of land without exclusive right of possession cannot support in a suit of trespass.
Mere occupation of premises is not sufficient to support an action in trespass. WHITE V BAILEY TRESPASS TO CHATTEL
Direct physical interference with the chattel without legal justification. Unlike conversion, a mere act of interference is trespass to chattel. FOULDS V WILLOUGHBY( Willo wanted to get rid of Foulds, let horses go, end in bro ein house wey bro sell am) It was held that leading them of the boat was interference with the horses. FORSON V KONES Salmond Actionable per se. WILLIAMS LEICTH V LAYDON D aerated the water bottles of the P; it was held to be trespass. A man touches the property of another at his own peril. EVERITT V MARTIN (Coat hang on fender) SLATER V SWAN (Horse whip) Capacity to sue Owner out of possession generally cannot sue in trespass. Interference must be with the property in possession. WARD V MCCAULEY P must show he was in possession of the chattel at the time. HAMPS V DARBY (D farmer, P kept racing pigeons for exercise, they sat on the farm and caused damaged to the farm, D shot ) THE WINKFIELD CASE
Trustees are allowed to sue for trespass to chattel in the hand to beneficiaries. The act must be intentional or negligent NATIONAL COAL BOARD V EVANS (cable case) D did not intentionally cause damage to the cable HALABY V HALABY Interference must be intentional CONVERSION Nickels defined conversion in the KUWAITI V IRAQI FOULDS V WILLOUGHBY Mere possession of another’s goods without title is not necessarily conversion. Such possession is not necessarily inconsistent with the right of the owner. There must be an intention to keep the goods to exclusion of the owner and actual detention - YUNGDONG V RORO SERVICES by Date Bah STANDARD CHARTERED BANK V NELSON-Wrongful possession of goods belonging to another person and the use by that person. KUWAITTI V IRAQI 3 elements to prove for conversion. D’s conduct must be inconsistent with the right of the owner or the person in possession It must be deliberate not accidental Conduct excluded the owner from using and possessing the goods. CAPACITY Actual possession or Right to immediate possession of the goods. ARMORY V DELAMARE(chimney’s sweeper, jewel to D’s shop. Sweeper sued tho he was not the owner)- eno need sey you be rightful owner to bring an action. Mere possession dey enough. POSSESION
AHIABLE V DOSU It was held the owner of land was prima facie owner of chattel found in it unless he divested himself of the property. CHATTELS ATTACHED TO LAND/FOUND IN LAND SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER CO V SHARMAN(gold rings at the bottom of the pool, P employed D) No contractual duty of D to hand over any discovery found in the cleaning of the pool-This is what first instance court said . However on appeal , so far as owner the has exercised power and control over the property, he id deemed to be the de facto owner of everything found on it even if he did not know about it. ELWES V BRIGGS (pre -historic boat) Though he leased the land for 99 years, he was still entitled to the pre-historic boat. LONDON CORPOATION V APPLE YARD.
CHATTELS FOUND ON LAND Possession is said to be in the occupier of the land but the law doesn’t work that way BRIDGES V HAWKSWORTH (bank notes fell in shop), D was entitled to the money found in his shop at first instance but this was reversed on grounds that the notes were never in possession of the D. HANNAH V PEEL (Broche case) owner of land sold broche.
HIBBERT V McKERNAN (8 gulf balls) Animus possendendi. RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE POSSESSION P must be unconditionally entitled to assume physical control of the goods if he so wishes. LORD V PRICE (two lots of cotton at auction, P did not finish paying so he took part and later went to meet nothing, D took it mistakenly ) P did not have right of present possession because he hadn’t finish paying. Sale on condition-no right to sue Sale on credit you- have a right to sue. BLOXAN V SANDERS(READ IT YOURSELF) MENTAL STATE
WILLIAMS V GEESE(coat and pantalon, P clothes in box in a kitchen D moved it but sekof bad memory he no dey kai)-negligence does not constitute conversion. ASHBY V TOLHURST ( Car) Liability for conversion is strict- FOWLER V HOLLINS DETINUE
Unjustified detention of a plaintiff’s good Right of immediate possession Refusal to hand over the document upon Detinue you can get damages for the value of the goods unlike conversion where the person must still be in the possession of the defendant All detinues are conversions, vice versa is not true For Detinue, P must show that That P had the right of possession GENERAL FINANCES LTD V COOK CARS D detained the goods. SORREL V PAGET Detained without lawful justification. YEBOAH V KWAME Upon request, the D refused to hand over the goods.SORREL V PAGET It is actionable per se. STANDARD CHANTERED BANK LTD V NELSON. Request for damages for the value of the goods assessed at the time of judgement. Specific restitution Conversion is an action in persona and detinue is an action in rem DEFENCES HUGE LAND V R,R LAW -Accidental loss, SORREL V PAGET -Necessity DEFENCES Inevitable accident CAN - Consent SEE- Self defence DOMINIC – Defence of a person DANCING -Defence of property NEAR -Necessity AKUA’S-Abatement of nuisance DOOR - Disclipline Inevitable accident It was not intentional or negligent -FOWLER V LANNIN Consent -Consent can be from word or inferred from an act. Volenti non fit injuria. HEGARTI V SHINE (sex and veneral disease) SELF DEFENSE- Trespass was to defend himself , it was reasonable to do in the circumstances and that the force was reasonable. Lord Bromwell in CODD V CABE said no more force than is necessary should be used. COCKROFT V SMITH(biting of finger in court after the P pointing finger in the eye) The court said the force used was not reasonable Défense of the person of another. BARFOOT V REYNOLDS(servant taking revenge for ein master).The defence would have applied where without the action of D , the person would have been beaten SEAMAN V CUPPLEDICK(Mater defending servant)- A man may use force in the defense of his goods HANDCOCK V BAKER-D s=held P’s hand when he was about to murder his wife. Court said the force used was justified. Defense of property- CRESWELL V SIRL BIRD V HOLDBROOK (Planted a spring gun with the intention of protecting flowers, P chasing a stray owl was injured)…Liable in damages Defence of necessity the Mouse case, ship facing eminent wreck, had to save by offloading, ended up throwing the casket of the plaintiff, plaintiff suit failed Abatement of nuisance – defence to an action in trespass- lemmon v. Webb – plaintiff and defendant were adjoining land owners of which the plaintiff tree was overreaching to the defendant land. He cut off that branch and was sued. The court held that he was justified in doing so far as he did not trespass unto the plaintiff land. Discipline (if the defendant prove that the action was taken to discipline the plaintiff)– Ash v Ash – the mother used force to compel the child to take medicine. The court held that the force was excessive and unreasonable as such, was held to be liable. Ryan v. Fildes – the plaintiff was a student and was boxed in the ear by the headmistress and as a result lost hearing to that ear. The court held that the force was excessive and unreasonable. RYLAND V FLETCHER Strict liability- you bring things into your land at your peril. FACTS: P owned a mine, D owned mill on adjoining land. Blackburn, person who in the course of the non-natural use of land accumulates a thing which he knew of such accumulation results in its escape to the detriment of harm to someone’s land is liable Download 41.89 Kb. Share with your friends:
|