Potential Liability in Tort and Protection of Harassment Act of 1997

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of this Essay is to advise the parties as to any potential liability in tort and under the protection from Harassment Act 1997, also to find out the particulars of the case and list the points that are necessary in order for someone be found guilty.

In Caroline and Nicole, A minor must be responsible for his or her own torts. However the issue here is whether Nicole’s actions amounted to a battery?

Battery:

To make a claim, Caroline must establish that Nicole intentionally caused an offensive contact with her. However in (Garratt v. Dailey), Nicole may not be liable for battery because the element of intent is not satisfied as she did not intent to step on Caroline’s foot. On the other hand, Caroline can argue that although the accident was unknown but Nicole failure to rectify the situation has rendered it a battery (See: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner) and Nicole did not consent her as she was a minor (Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority).

SIMON AND CAROLINE

Could Caroline action amount a battery?

Battery:

To prove tort of battery; Simon must establish that Caroline, Intentionally caused an offensive contact with him, that the force was direct and immediate, and the touching or contact was hostile.

INTENT: Caroline may not have intended to hit Simon with her shoe, although Even if her intention was not to hit Simon the shoe, Caroline may nevertheless have intended a harmful or offensive touching (see Scott v Shepherd). Caroline action alone of not taking a reasonable care of throwing the shoe was foreseeable, as there was possibility that if the shoe did not hit Nicole it would hit somebody (Corn V. Shepard). This is adequate to constitute intent. The f...

... middle of paper ...

... use public telecommunications system for the purpose of needless anxiety or causing shock to another.

Whether the fact that Shazza Conduct could cause physical harm or mental distress to Louis?

It is likely that Louis will have an actionable claim, it is shown in the fact, that Shazza intended to Shock Louis in an effort to revenge, Shazza statement was a violent shock which might actually cause Louis harm or mental distress as a reasonable person in the same position might also suffer the same (R v Burstow). The rule in Wilkinson V downton will provide remedy for physical and psychiatric harm intentionally cause by false statement.

Conclusion

In my opinion as to whether to sue in all of the above cases would be to advise the parties that all the claims and injuries are trivial and that their money and psychic energy would be well spent on other activities.