We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

See Pricing

What's Your Topic?

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

What's Your Deadline?

Choose 3 Hours or More.
Back
2/4 steps

How Many Pages?

Back
3/4 steps

Sign Up and See Pricing

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Back
Get Offer

Trespass to Person – Battery

Hire a Professional Writer Now

The input space is limited by 250 symbols

Deadline:2 days left
"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

14) What torts, if any, have been committed in the following situation: a) Just as Alice is sitting down on a chair, Nathan creeps up from behind and whips the chair from under her. Alice falls to the ground and fractures her arm. TRESPASS TO PERSON BATTERY DEFINITION: The intentional and direct application of force to another person without that person’s consent. ELEMENTS OF BATTERY: iii) Physical contact iii) Physical contact ii) The Defendant’s act was under his control

ii) The Defendant’s act was under his control ELEMENTS OF BATTERY ELEMENTS OF BATTERY v) Without Plaintiff’s consent iv) Without Plaintiff’s consent i) The mental state of the Defendant i) The mental state of the Defendant i) THE MENTAL STATE OF THE DEFENDANT * The Defendant must have applied the force with intention.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Trespass to Person – Battery
Just from $13,9/Page
Get custom paper

* No violence is necessary and any physical contact ith the body of the Plaintiff or his clothing is sufficient to constitute “force”. ii) THE DEFENDANT’S ACT WAS UNDER HIS CONTROL * The Defendant’s act must be done voluntarily.

* CASE: Gibbons v. Pepper The Defendant was riding a horse when someone hit the horse from behind, causing the horse to bolt.

The horse collided with the Plaintiff. HELD: The Defendant was not liable as the act of the horse bolting was outside its control. iii) PHYSICAL CONTACT * There must be some contact/touching with the Plaintiff’s body. * CASE: Collins v. Wilcock A police officer held a woman with the intention of temporarily detaining her. HELD: The contact was hostile as the police officer did not have the authority to detain her. iv) WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S CONSENT * One cannot touch another person without his consent or without lawful justification. * CASE: Tiong Pik Hiong v. Wong Siew Gieu

The Defendant was liable for battery for scratching the Plaintiff’s face and hitting her, due to her (Defendant) jealousy of the Plaintiff’s friendship with her husband. * No battery if consent is given by Plaintiff expressly impliedly. Eg of implied consent: tapping a person’s shoulder in order to get his attention or touching that occur while queuing for a train. APPLICATION: Thus the tort committed in this case is Battery under Trespass to Person. In this case, there is an intentional and direct application of force from Nathan to Alice as Nathan had intentionally creeps from behind and whipped her chair from under her.

This shows that the Defendant (Nathan) had applied the force with intention, which fulfilled the first element of Battery, the mental state of the Defendant. Next, Nathan (Defendant)’s act was under his control. Nathan had done a direct application of whipping Alice’s chair from under her, just as she about to sit on her chair. This shows that the second element of Battery is also fulfilled. In addition, the defendant need not actually touch the plaintiff using his or her body; the contact may be caused indirectly.

So there had been a contact/touching between Nathan and Alice, where Nathan used the chair as the medium of causing Battery towards Alice. Nathan had whipped Alice’s chair when she was about to sit on her chair, which caused her to fall to the ground and fractured her arm. Thus, the third element of Battery is also fulfilled as there was physical contact occurred in this case. Lastly, in this case, the tort committed was without the Plaintiff (Alice)’s consent. Nathan was liable for Battery for making Alice falls to the ground until she fractured her arm. CONCLUSION:

Since all the elements of Battery has been fulfilled in this case of Nathan and Alice, which are the mental state of the Defendant, Defendant’s act was under his control, there is physical contact occurred, and without the Plaintiff’s consent, therefore, it can be conclude that there is tort committed in this case which is Battery under Trespass to Person, and Nathan is liable to the tort of Battery. ANSWER SCRIPT (1) 14) What torts, if any, have been committed in the following situation: a) Just as Alice is sitting down on a chair, Nathan creeps up from behind and whips the chair from under her.

Alice falls to the ground and fractures her arm. Battery may be defined as the intentional and direct application of force to another person without that person’s consent. An act is a battery if it causes physical pain or injury to a person’s body. It may also be an act that is offensive to a reasonable person. The issue here is whether there is tort committed of Battery under Trespass to Person. The first element that needs to be fulfilled in order to make sure that there is tort committed is The Mental State of the Defendant. The Defendant must have applied the force with intention.

And it is said that no violence is necessary and any physical contact with the body of the Plaintiff or his clothing is sufficient enough to constitute “force”. While the second element that needs to be fulfilled is The Defendant’s Act Was Under His Control. There is Battery committed when the Defendant’s act was done voluntarily and under his control. According to the case of Gibbons v. Pepper, the Defendant was riding a horse when someone hit the horse from behind, causing the horse to bolt. The horse collided with the Plaintiff.

The court decided that the Defendant was not liable as the act of the horse bolting was outside his control. The third element that needs to be fulfilled in order to make sure that there is Battery occurred, is the physical contact between the Plaintiff and Defendant. It is said that there must be some contact/touching with the Plaintiff’s body. According to the case of Collins v. Wilcock, a police officer held a woman with the intention of temporarily detaining her. The court decided that the contact was hostile, as the police officer did not have the authority to detain her.

And lastly, the fourth element of Battery that need to be fulfilled is The Act Was Without Plaintiff’s Consent. One cannot touch another person without his consent or without lawful justification. Example, from the case of Tiong Pik Hiong v. Wong Siew Gieu, the Defendant was liable for battery for scratching the Plaintiff’s face and hitting her, due to her (Defendant) jealousy of the Plaintiff’s friendship with her husband. However, no battery if consent is given by Plaintiff expressly or impliedly. Example of implied consent is tapping a person’s shoulder in order to get his attention, or touching that occur while queuing for a train.

Thus, the tort committed in this case is Battery under Trespass to Person. In this case, there is an intentional and direct application of force from Nathan to Alice as Nathan had intentionally creeps from behind and whipped her chair from under her. This shows that the Defendant (Nathan) had applied the force with intention, which fulfilled the first element of Battery, the mental state of the Defendant. Next, Nathan (Defendant)’s act was under his control. Nathan had done a direct application of whipping Alice’s chair from under her, just as she about to sit on her chair.

This shows that the second element of Battery is also fulfilled. In addition, the defendant need not actually touch the plaintiff using his or her body; the contact may be caused indirectly. So there had been a contact/touching between Nathan and Alice, where Nathan used the chair as the medium of causing Battery towards Alice. Nathan had whipped Alice’s chair when she was about to sit on her chair, which caused her to fall to the ground and fractured her arm. Thus, the third element of Battery is also fulfilled as there was physical contact occurred in this case.

Lastly, in this case, the tort committed was without the Plaintiff (Alice)’s consent. Nathan was liable for Battery for making Alice falls to the ground until she fractured her arm. Since all the elements of Battery has been fulfilled in this case of Nathan and Alice, which are the mental state of the Defendant, Defendant’s act was under his control, there is physical contact occurred, and without the Plaintiff’s consent, therefore, it can be conclude that there is tort committed in this case which is Battery under Trespass to Person, and Nathan is liable to the tort of Battery.

Cite this Trespass to Person – Battery

Trespass to Person – Battery. (2016, Oct 17). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/trespass-to-person-battery/

Show less
  • Use multiple resourses when assembling your essay
  • Get help form professional writers when not sure you can do it yourself
  • Use Plagiarism Checker to double check your essay
  • Do not copy and paste free to download essays
Get plagiarism free essay

Search for essay samples now

Haven't found the Essay You Want?

Get my paper now

For Only $13.90/page