1. Torts concerned with ‘assault’.
(1) Mike made menacing calls to threaten Gavin with physical violence and death of his family. The issue of this act is whether the menacing call by Mike constitutes assault. Assault means any direct and intentional act (include threatening words) of the wrongdoer which puts a reasonable person in apprehension of an imminent physical contact with his body. Consider the debtor-loan shark relationship between Gavin and Mike, Gavin’s words can create the apprehension even the violence did not occur immediately. In Barton v Armstrong [1969] 2 NSWR 451, the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff. It was held that threats on the telephone could amount to assault. Gavin’s situation is similar to Barton’s,
…show more content…
Torts concerned with ‘false imprisonment’.
(1) Gavin was forced to get into Mike’s car, the issue is whether this act constitute false imprisonment. ‘False imprisonment’ means any direct and intentional act of the wrongdoer, causing a total restraint on the freedom of movement of the plaintiff, within limits set by the defendant, without the victim’s consent or any lawful justification. Because the act of Mike was direct and intentional, and the act cause total restraint on the freedom of Gavin to limit him in the car, and the fact was without consent of Gavin or other justification, Mike had committed false imprisonment.
(2)Mike locked Gavin in the warehouse, where there was a fire escape door. The issue is whether Mike committed false imprisonment and whether there existed reasonable means of escape. In R v Chan Wing Kuen & Anor, it was held that psychological restraint will be sufficient to grant an action in false imprisonment. Although there was a fire escape door, in the context of experience of assault and battery and false imprisonment in the car, since Gavin was locked in the warehouse by Mike, Gavin was under psychological restraint at that time. Gavin was completely under the control of Mike against his will and under psychological restraint in this circumstance. His freedom was deprived. Gavin was too scared to escape through the fire escape door, and any reasonable person under such pressure won’t know whether he would escape successfully without further danger.
…show more content…
Torts concerned with ‘intentional infliction’.
(1) Mike threat Susan, then Susan was frightened and committed suicide and finally she suffered a miscarriage. The issue here is whether Mike constituted intentional infliction of physical harm.
It was established in Wilkinson v Downton that if someone intentionally conducts themselves in a way which causes indirect harm, the Defendant could also be imputed for intentional infliction of physical harm. According to the Wilkinson rule, there are 3 requirements of this tort: (a) The defendant must have intended to produce injury or nervous shock that in fact happened. (b) The defendant’s act or statement must have produced the injury or nervous shock. (c) The plaintiff’s injury or nervous shock must have been an indirect result of the defendant’s conduct.
In the present case, when Mike went to threaten Susan, obviously Mike intended to frighten her. The fact that Susan committed suicide and suffered a miscarriage is obliviously a harm. The harm was an indirect result of Mike’s conduct because it was not directly pushed by Mike. Therefore, Mike committed intentional infliction of physical harm.
5. Torts concerned with ‘trespass to
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
Legal issues: Whether the defendant is liable or not for restricting the plaintiff’s freedom to contact attorney or family under “false imprisonment?” In addition, as per “assault and battery tort law,” Is it legal for the defendant to treat the plaintiff without her consent? And, does the defendant’s act was unprofessional with the plaintiff under
Issue: Under Kentucky tort law, does intentional infliction of emotional distress occur when a person suffers severe insomnia and anxiety as a result of witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone?
Physical abuse is recognised as a person making contact with their victim, causing pain or
One day, I went to the superior court in Boston and to the District court. One of the cases that I observed at the Superior court was a case of assault and battery that happened at a train station on August 2014. an African American male who pushed a young male on a train track at South Station MBTA. During the court session, everyone gathered together to hear the assault and battery case that take place at the train station.
Therefore, even if the facts show that these employees where somehow providing professionally approved care, i.e. physically restraining her during an out of control incident, the patient’s perception that she was being physically and sexually assaulted remains to be the outcome. Therefore, according to the consequential theory of ethics, this behavior would not be considered ethical. Therefore, an alternative action, or one that is not perceived to be threatening and harmful, must be executed.
firearms and axes. Physical violence can result in murder and often leads to serious physical injury. The injuries are not always obvious as abusers often make sure the signs of their attacks are hidden under clothing. For many women there is a real and constant threat of death because of the seriousness of the abuse.
Intentional tort is one half of the tort law that protects people from “restraint, unauthorized touching, and any other contact that is not authorized” (112, Cheeseman). One example of intentional tort is battery, which is “ Unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with a person who causes you injury, indirect physical contact is also battery as long as the end result is injury” (113, Cheeseman). This is just one example and there are many more such as assault, false imprisonment, shoplifting, invasion of the right to privacy, and many more. The difference between an intentional tort and an
Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress; The intentional infliction of emotional distress results from extreme and outrageous conduct that causes serious emotional harm (Samuelson, 2016). An example of intentional infliction of emotional distress is an angry employee decides to get even with a fellow co-worker for a perceived injustice by telling the co-worker he has been having an affair with the co-worker’s wife for several months, a lie, but convincing enough to cause doubt. This lie eventually causes many arguments, accusations and a separation between the plaintiff and his wife. The defendant caused intentional infliction of emotional distress, because his actions were considered to be an outrageous thing to do, and the serious emotional harm that was caused to both plaintiffs.
Defences of Assault and Battery In most crimes there are always defences to the offence that has been
“Florida’s law is not clear to those who must apply it as to what constitutes provocation by an aggressor. If law enforcement does not know when following someone, using harsh language or physical contact arise to the level of provocation, they have no way of knowing who is the aggressor and who is a victim in a situation where both parties eventually resort to force.” (Thurston Jr.)
Nicole stepped on Caroline mistakenly, which was an unlawful touching. According to Elliott and Quinn there are three elements to this intentional tort; force, direct application and intent which is so in this case. However, according to Croom-Johnson LJ in the case of Wilson v Pringle “the first distinction between two causes of action where there is personal injury is the element of contact between the claimant and the defendant; that is touching of sort. In the action of negligence, the physical contact (where it takes place at all) is normally through by no means always unintended” . In the action of trespass to constitute battery, it is deliberate. Even so, it is not very intended contact, which is tortious. Apart from in acting in self-defence), there are many examples in everyday life where an i...
Hitting an individual is an act of battery while threatening the person is an assault; the
It is considered to be a deliberate act on the defendant’s part to cause the harm that occurs. In my opinion the, this was not intentional. McDonald was not wilful in trying to harm Liebeck. Intentionally trying to hurt Liebeck would mean loss of revenue and reputation for McDonald and I firmly believe that is a risk they were not willing to take hence, why it is not intentional tort case. Also, to act with intent would mean to see someone coming and hurting them in the process. This was not the case for Liebeck, she bought the coffee and went back to the car and then the coffee
Hoel (2002) finds that perpetrators may not intend to harm others. Crawshaw (2009) draws a similar conclusion from a case study: When a manager is confronted about his abusive behavior he defends his actions stating that his intention is to protect the safety of his employees, not harm them. One must question, however, whether or not a perpetrator would willingly confess to ill intentions (Hoel, 2002).