Torts law (1 Viewer)

[JAZZAY]

If a person hits another as a means of consequence this doesnt amount to battery because (i) the act was not intended and (ii) it was not direct. If it isnt battery then what tort does it amount to? Or basically what action could the harmed person use against the person who indirectly inflicted the harm?

Thanx for any input!

 

[mr EaZy]

hmm i thought this would be an equity case?

anyways im not a law student .................yet

 

[Newbie]

what does "as a means of consequence" mean?

 

[Lexicographer]

I assume it means an unintended act, for example if a person "fell towards" another person...with a fist.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Just to confuse things, apparently you can have negligent battery

 

[noneother]

For an action to be defined as battery it has to be an active direct act..ie. the immediate action caused the injury/damage. Otherwise it is a case not a trespass. For example if I throw a stick at you while your skateboarding then that is a trespass since its immediate, however if I throw the stick on the road then you trip over it then that is a case.

Negligent trespass may result from carelessless or accident/misfortune in which case the defendant may still be liable for damages if it can be proved that a direct act from their carelessness resulted in injury/damage.

With that said there's direct and intentional trespass OR direct and negligent trespass. In most instances you will find it is intentional..very rare for negligent trespasses.

The defence for battery is consent. Any unwanted contact without consent amounts to battery...hope that helps.

 

[sugared plum]

need more info to give an accurate answer like who is plaintiff/defendant - relationship, age, situation etc eg s/he accidentally hit him/her tripping up at work or s/he accidentally hit him/her because s/he has a weird arm shake thing.

lots of cases say battery is contact without consent. "everyman's being is sacred".

disclaimer- i went to about 4 tort classes last yr

 

[noneother]

Yeah true. It depends on the context.
Although I find the accident part a bit confusing. I've been trying to read the case of Hilton v Wallace (1989) online but can't find it! It's to do with a footballer accidentally poking someone in the eye but was not held accountable for battery. I need to find out why!


BTW Why did you go to 4 tort classes?

 

[spell check]

Yeah true. It depends on the context.
Although I find the accident part a bit confusing. I've been trying to read the case of Hilton v Wallace (1989) online but can't find it! It's to do with a footballer accidentally poking someone in the eye but was not held accountable for battery. I need to find out why!


BTW Why did you go to 4 tort classes?

the footballer wouldn't have been held accountable for battery because getting your eye poked is a risk you take by playing football and isn't unreasonably excessive violence. if he punched another player out then it would more likely be battery.

 

[sugared plum]

because they started at 4, which was too early.

 

[neo o]

Otherwise it is a case not a trespass.

That's so 19th century.

For example if I throw a stick at you while your skateboarding then that is a trespass since its immediate, however if I throw the stick on the road then you trip over it then that is a case.

It'd probably be better to give the guy the authority instead of ruining the immortal words of Fortescue CJ.

Reynolds v Clarke.

f a man throws a log into the highway, and in that act it hits me; I may maintain trespass, because it is an immediate wrong; but if as it lies there I tumble over it, and receive an injury I must bring an action upon the case.

if it can be proved that a direct act from their carelessness resulted in injury/damage.

Trespass is actionable per se.

very rare for negligent trespasses.

Not really, no.

The defence for battery is consent. Any unwanted contact without consent amounts to battery...hope that helps.

There are more besides consent. But I'm sure if the guy looks in his textbook I'm sure he'll find them. Consent/Necessity/Medical Procedures/Self Defence are all defences.

 

[neo o]

Just to confuse things, apparently you can have negligent battery

Yeah of course, if you say, hit someone unintentionally. I would love to have some authority for this though, because it's in my foundations assignment and IT'S FUCKING WITH MY HEAD.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

For an action to be defined as battery it has to be an active direct act..ie. the immediate action caused the injury/damage. Otherwise it is a case not a trespass. For example if I throw a stick at you while your skateboarding then that is a trespass since its immediate, however if I throw the stick on the road then you trip over it then that is a case.

Negligent trespass may result from carelessless or accident/misfortune in which case the defendant may still be liable for damages if it can be proved that a direct act from their carelessness resulted in injury/damage.

With that said there's direct and intentional trespass OR direct and negligent trespass. In most instances you will find it is intentional..very rare for negligent trespasses.

The defence for battery is consent. Any unwanted contact without consent amounts to battery...hope that helps.

It should be noted that this is historical -- the old trespass on the case categories no longer exist.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

oops I see you've already clarified some of those points neo_o