Trespass to the person is the direct or the threat of infliction of harm upon the claimant. There are three torts classified under the tort of trespass to person, namely, battery, assault and false imprisonment. These intentional torts are actionable per se, so that they can be used to protect one's civil rights and dignity, even if no physical injury has occurred. What actually amounts to an intention? A person is deemed to have an intention if he desires to produce the consequences of his act, and knows substantially, and certainly the potential consequences resulting from his act. For instance, A intended to throw a stone at B, and A succeeded in hitting B. So, A has intentionally caused the harm. The definition, elements, and cases under …show more content…
Different cases have provided different results and reasoning based on varying facts. In an earlier case, Herring v Boyle , the school authorities refused to allow the mother to bring her child home due to unpaid school fees. It was held that there was no false imprisonment as the child was unaware of the detention. However in Meering v Grahame- White Aviation Co Ltd , the defendant was liable for false imprisonment because the fact that there were two police officers guarding outside the office where the plaintiff was in, the plaintiff’s freedom of movement was totally restrained. Although the plaintiff was unaware of the officers’ presence, if the plaintiff tries to leave the office, the police officers can stop him from doing so. The courts held that the plaintiff does not need to be aware of the imprisonment, thus overruling Herring’s case. There is an intention to commit an act to detain, knowledge of the detention is unnecessary and false imprisonment will still be established. An exception of determining false imprisonment is when the plaintiff enters the property under certain conditions. In Robinson v Balmain Ferry Co Ltd, there was no false imprisonment because the plaintiff was subjected under the ferry’s regulation that a payment must be made upon entry and exit of the ferry. Hence the grounds for detaining the plaintiff were
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
• Conclusion o Dale Hawthorn likely did not have an absolute right to enter the apartment of his former fiancé. • Rules o General Rules Alabama Statute states that a person is committing burglary when he enters a house/habitable building without authority and with intent to commit an offense.
I have reviewed the unfortunate case in which the vehicle that you parked at the Greensboro Coliseum parking lot was vandalized. It is important for you to understand your legal rights against Greensboro Coliseum. First, let’s go over the facts of the case: After arriving at the Greensboro Coliseum parking lot, you paid a lot attendant $20 for a ticket that permits you to park in the lot. On the ticket, it specifically states “WARNING: Not responsible for damage to personal property while on Greensboro Coliseum premises."
Dunaway v. New York 442 U.S. 200 (1979), (Detention for interrogation). Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), (reviewed the application of unreasonable seizures). References; Joe HAYES v. FLORIDA, 470 U.S. 811, 105 S. Ct. 1643, 84 L. Ed. 2d 705
Julian wants to sue David, the other player. In his complaint, which tort theory is Julian’s attorney most likely to allege and what will he have to prove for Julian to be successful? Julian’s attorney is most likely to allege Intentional Tort for his complaint to be successful. An intentional tort occurs whenever someone intends an action that results in harm to a person’s body, reputation, emotional well-being, or property. During the game David kicked Julian in the head while Julian was in possession on the ball.
The danger arising from such practice is that the people do not have a voice if judges become unwilling to recognise fundamental rights. One example of how legislation is infringing on fundamental rights is seen in Fardon v Attorney-General (Queensland) . 12 In this case, there was debate as to whether legislation allowing the Supreme Court to order the continued detention of serious sex offenders once their original sentence had been served was constitutionally valid if the person presents a serious risk of re-offending. In effect, a person could be kept in prison in the absence of committing a new crime and without the need to show mental illness or other symptoms which would normally justify extended detention.
In this Socratic seminar, many fascinating and engaging topics were discussed, however the group struggled in coming up with conclusions. However one of the most distinguished ideas that were discussed in this seminar was how intentions predict outcomes. The group seemed to all agree that intentions do not predict outcomes, however there can be exceptions. The group continued on expressing their feeling on the topic by pointing out evidence from the books. One example that heated up the debate was how Gorge had intentions of being unique and working up a steak to start his own farm with Lennie however, it did not come to be.
False imprisonment is an act punishable under criminal law as well as under tort law. Under tort law, it is classified as an intentional tort as trespass to a person. False Imprisonment has been defined as the total restraint of the liberty of a person. The word ‘false’ means ‘erroneous’ or ‘wrong’. It is a tort of strict liability and the plaintiff has not to prove fault on part of the defendant.
DISCUSSION I. Under the Ohio Duty of Care Owed to Trespasser Statute, even though Oleg Burov likely knew that children might trespass on his property, he will likely not be liable for a slip and fall injury Frank Gaad sustained outside a hot tub on Burov’s property. Using the doctrine of attractive nuisance the Ohio Duty of Care Owed to Trespasser Statute establishes the liability of real property owners for injuries sustained by minor trespassers. Mayle v. McDonald Steel Corp., No. 2010-T-0090, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 4319, at *18 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2011).
For battery there must have been the actual act and intent is not necessarily a requirement. A negligent or illegal act may be enough. For assault it is required that an actual deliberate threat was made to cause fear on the victim, and there was an attempt to commit battery.
The intent to commit the felony is considered enough to prove malice for the conviction of murder. If a perpetrator intends only to rob a victim, but the victim or bystander dies during the commission of the robbery, the perpetrator can be charged
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’.
In the case of recklessness it is sufficient that a person not think about the possible results or take risk on the fact they don’t think the outcome is likely. Where as for knowledge, similar to oblique intention the defendant “ shuts his eyes and fails to enquire because he is virtually certain what the answer will be” (e.g. Ross v.Moss  2QB 369), in this case the court will invoke the doctrine of wilful blindness, the defendant will be considered to have actual knowledge. Therefore the extent to what the defendant foresaw is key. On the other hand the argument could be that its not a distinguishing factor due to the similarities regarding foresight between intention and knowledge.
The meaning of intention have been highly debated and had went through transformation throughout the years. It was R v Moloney  AC 905 which introduced the Moloney Guidelines was the first case to introduce this subject, this case was followed by R v Hancock and Shankland  3 WLR 1014 then came along the case of R v Nedrick  1 WLR 1025 the final, clarified guidance comes from R v Woolin  1 A.C. 82 . DIRECT INTENT If a defendant commits an act with an aim in mind, and he succeeds in it, it can be said that he directly intended this consequence, and therefore, has direct intent. For an example, in the case of R v White  2 KB 124 , defendant put cyanide into his mother’s lemonade drink, but she died of heart failure before the poison could kill her.