ANALYSING THE CONSTITUENTS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT False Imprisonment- False imprisonment is a civil wrong and is one of the intentional torts. When literal meaning is given to the words ‘False’ means- unlawful or erroneous; ‘Imprisonment’ means- restraining someone without their consent, with an intention to cause some physical or legal injury to the other person. False Imprisonment is not a new concept under tortious activities, the cases of false imprisonment can be traced back when the concept of ruling humans by humans began. In simple words, the concept of ‘False Imprisonment’ can be defined as, any act by the defendant where, the defendant restraints the freedom of movement of the plaintiff in any manner without any lawful justification or authority amounts to false imprisonment. In some cases of False Imprisonment may be of both civil and criminal nature.
INTRODUCTION Trespass to person protects an individual’s interest to personal security, bodily integrity, personal liberty, property and reputation. In tort law, "assault" and "battery" are separate, with an assault being an act which creates fear of an imminent battery, and the battery being an unlawful touching. Assault and battery are intentional torts, meaning that the defendant actually intends to put the plaintiff in fear of being battered, or intends to wrongfully touch the plaintiff. If A threatens B with unwelcome physical contact, he commits the tort of assault. If he deliberately makes unwelcome physical contact, he commits the tort of battery.
The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved.
The burden of proof is an obligation on one party to persuade the jury or a judge of an alleged claim. The defendant need not prove his own innocence; it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty and the standard of proof here is beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to discharge such legal burden would result in the defendant being acquitted. This principle is especially important in criminal cases because a person’s liberty is at stake. In doing so, it will help to promote fair trial and somewhat uphold human rights.
Negligence is a term of art, but has different meanings in different jurisdictions. In ‘Tort’, damage is an essential ingredient but that element is not necessary in master servant relationship. In criminal law, there are channels of offences based on negligence in which loss or injury is immaterial; it is enough if the act is likely to cause injury or endanger life. Operating a patient without consent is an example of negligence even without actual damage. Dictionary meaning of term ‘Negligence’ is ‘Lack of Proper Care’.
When determining whether there was intent in the form of dolus directus, it does not matter how small the chances are of the consequence realizing . Dolus indirectus is present when the unlawful consequence or act is not the accused’s main aim and object, but the accused foresees the unlawful conduct or consequence as certain or ‘substantially certain’ or ‘virtually certain’ . The third and final form of intent is dolus eventualis: where an accused does not intend to bring about the unlawful consequence/circumstance which results from his or her main aim, but continues with act after subjectively foreseeing the possibility of the circumstance existing or consequence ensuing . Dolus directus, dolus indirectus and dolus eventualis may be of specific intent or general
What is required is that there ought to be a sensible dread of capture by the individual applying. It can be documented at a spot where the charged catches capture. In Balchand’s case , Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the term anticipatory bail means bail in anticipation of arrest . But the term itself is really a misnomer because what section 438 contemplates is not anticipatory bail but merely an order directing the release of an accused on bail in the event of
II. Inducement. The misrepresentation must have induced the representee to enter into the contract therefore there must be casual connection between the making of misrepresentation and the conclusion of the contract, but no assistance will be granted if the representee knew that the statement was false and failed to
In Tort Law, intent plays a key role in determining the civil liability of persons who commit harm. An intentional tort is any deliberate invasion of, or interference with, the property, property rights, personal rights, or personal liberties of another that causes injuries without Just Cause or excuse. In tort an individual is considered to intend the consequences of an act—whether or not she or he actually intends those consequences—if the individual is substantially certain that those consequences will result.
There might not be a fault per se but if an activity is so dangerous that it may constitute constant danger to person and property, the person who performs such an activity must be liable even if his or her fault is not present. In such cases the law might deal with this in two ways, one is to prohibit such activities, and the second is to permit them to be carried out in accordance with statutory provisions laying down safety measures. In such situations, those who undertook such activities have to compensate for any damage caused, regardless of any negligence on their part. Negligence is based on foreseeable harm, which means that harm could be avoided by