Trespass to the Person | Law of Torts - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

Trespass to the person encompasses three main intentional torts: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Despite sharing names with certain crimes, these are civil wrongs. When someone is found liable for tortious assault, battery, or false imprisonment, they do not face criminal penalties but are required to pay damages to the victim.

Assault

• In tort law, assault refers to the apprehension of immediate and unlawful physical contact, not just physical contact itself. A person becomes a victim of assault when they fear they are about to be physically attacked.
• For an assault to occur, the possibility of an actual attack must exist. If an attack is impossible, there can be no assault, even if the victim apprehends physical contact. For example, if someone is waving a stick and chasing another person who is driving away in a car, it would not constitute assault.
• Generally, mere words do not constitute assault. However, if accompanied by threatening behavior, an assault may have occurred.

Battery

• Battery occurs when the anticipated physical contact in an assault actually takes place. It is not necessary for the physical contact to cause injury, permanent damage, or even be intended to cause harm. The only intention required is to make physical contact.
• For example, if someone intends to slap another person and successfully does so, even without causing injury, battery has been committed.

False Imprisonment

• False imprisonment involves unlawfully restraining a person, limiting their freedom of movement. Physical restraint isn't necessary; preventing someone from choosing their direction, even briefly, suffices. Intimidation or orders to stay put also count.
• A person can be restrained even with an escape route if using it is unreasonable, like lacking clothes or being in a first-floor room with only a window. Even if unaware, a victim can be falsely imprisoned if they are being restrained.

Defences to Trespass to the Person

1. Consent

• If someone agrees to physical contact, no battery occurs. Consent can be explicit or implied. For instance, a patient may consent to surgery that could otherwise be considered battery. In sports like rugby, players consent to physical contact as part of the game, making them not victims of a tort. However, intentional violence beyond game rules is not covered by this defense.

2. Necessity

• A wrongdoer may defend their actions by proving they were necessary. For example, pulling someone out of the way of an oncoming vehicle to prevent serious harm justifies breaking the law.

Defenses in Tort Law

1. Consent

• Consent can be explicit or implicit in various situations.
• For example, a patient may consent to surgery that could otherwise be considered battery.
• In sports like rugby, players consent to physical contact as part of the game, making them not victims of a tort.
• However, intentional violence beyond game rules is not covered by this defense.

2. Necessity

• A wrongdoer may defend their actions by proving they were necessary.
• For example, pulling someone out of the way of an oncoming vehicle to prevent serious harm justifies breaking the law.

3. Self-Defence

• The defense of self-defense will only succeed if the force used was not excessive and was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances to prevent personal injury.
• Each case must be considered on its own facts. For example, if a person is attacked with a knife it may be reasonable for them to defend themselves also with a knife, but not necessarily with an automatic pistol.
• It will be for the courts to decide what is reasonable.

4. In Defence of Others

• Similar to self-defence, a wrongdoer may successfully argue that their actions were justified in order to assist a third party who they reasonably believe is in immediate danger of being attacked.
• This commonly occurs when a parent is protecting a child or one spouse is protecting another.

5. Defence for False Imprisonment

• There is a complete defence to false imprisonment if the victim was restrained under legal authority or justification, or if the perpetrator was exercising their legal rights or duties.

Malicious Prosecution

• Malicious prosecution is a form of abuse of legal process, involving the institution of criminal proceedings in a court of law maliciously, unreasonably, and without proper cause.
• If a person can demonstrate actual damage, they can file an action for damages under tort law.
• Essentials:
• The proceedings were instituted without any probable or reasonable cause.
• Proceedings were filed maliciously and not with the intention of simply enforcing the law.

Termination of Proceedings in Favor of the Plaintiff

• The plaintiff must demonstrate that the legal proceedings were terminated in their favor.
• The plaintiff must prove that they suffered damage as a result of the prosecution.

Example Scenario:

• Person P reports a theft to the police, suspecting individual A as the thief.
• A is arrested but later released by the magistrate due to lack of evidence connecting A to the theft.
• A sues P for malicious prosecution.
• The court dismisses A's case because there was no formal prosecution in a court of law.

Understanding Prosecution:

• Prosecution involves initiating legal action against someone. It is considered to have begun when a person is summoned to respond to a complaint.
• Reasonable and Probable Cause: This refers to having an honest belief in the guilt of the accused based on reasonable grounds. It means having sufficient reasons to think that the accused likely committed the alleged offense.

Case Example: Abrath v. N.E. Railway Co.

• Background: In this case, 'M' received compensation from a railway company for injuries sustained in a railway accident. Later, the railway company discovered that these injuries were not caused in the accident but were intentionally created by 'M' in collusion with a doctor 'P'.
• Legal Action: The railway company, after conducting inquiries and seeking legal advice, sued 'P' for conspiring with 'M' to defraud the railway company.
• Outcome:'P' was acquitted of the charges, and subsequently, he filed a lawsuit against the railway company for malicious prosecution.
• Judgment: The court ruled in favor of the railway company, stating that they had reasonable and probable cause to pursue legal action against 'P'.

Understanding Malice in Legal Context:

• Malice refers to the presence of an improper or wrongful motive in initiating legal proceedings. It implies that the legal process is being used for a purpose other than upholding the law or justice, such as intending to harm the other party.
• Mere acquittal of the plaintiff in a legal case does not necessarily prove malice. Malice may be inferred if the person acted in undue haste, recklessly, failed to make proper inquiries, or acted out of retaliation or long-standing enmity.

Malicious Prosecution: Key Points

• The final crucial element in a case of malicious prosecution is that the person must have been acquitted, or the conclusion of the proceedings must be in favor of the plaintiff, who subsequently suffers damage. If the proceedings end in favor of the plaintiff but no damage is suffered, then no action for malicious prosecution can be pursued.
• Damage is a necessary component; it can manifest as injury to one’s fame or reputation, jeopardy to life or liberty, or harm to property.

Damage in Malicious Prosecution

Damage is a necessary component in cases of malicious prosecution. It can manifest in various forms, including:

• Injury to Fame or Reputation: Damage to one’s public image or standing.
• Jeopardy to Life or Liberty: Threats or harm to an individual’s life or freedom.
• Harm to Property: Damage or loss to one’s property.