Law Of Torts Hypothetical Case Study
This research paper presents a hypothetical case and all the claims present in the hypothetical’s are brought forward with in depth analysis of each of the claims. The analysis is made with proper rule applications and references have been made to the landmark cases which have set out the rules of law in the past decided cases.
Summary of facts
In the given hypothetical Alice who suffers from short sightedness does not wear glasses while she’s gardening. Barry is listening to loud music on his headphones, runs past her yard. He sees her and waves before crossing her yard to get a quick shortcut to his house which is on the other side of her property. Alice without recognizing who it was waves back and runs toward Barry with a blade in her hand. Barry’s friend Connor sees the events and worried about Barry, gets Alice from the back and pushes her to the ground. Dan, who dislikes Barry, saw Barry running in Alice’s backyard throws a rock at Barry but misses and hits Connor. After getting up Alice picks the blade and mistaking Dan for the man who pushed her (Connor), stands on Dan and with the blade pointed at his neck threatens him saying “keep trying to get up and you won’t like the consequences”. Mortifies and dreading for his life Dan covered before Alice and his attracted a huge crowd. Unaware of these events Barry runs home.
The various torts claims arising out of the given facts are listed chronologically. The first issue that arises from the given facts is against Barry. Whether Barry should be held liable for trespass to land when he ran across Alice’s land. Here Alice will be the plaintiff and Barry will be the defendant. The second issue is of assault. Whether Alice can be held liable for assault for charging at Barry with her pruning blade pointed at him. Here Barry shall be the plaintiff and Alice is the defendant. The third issue is of battery. We can question if Connor can be held liable for battery against Alice when he pushed her down to the ground in defense for Barry. The fourth issue that arises is of battery. We question whether Dan can be held liable for battery against Connor when he hit him with a rock. We analyze this claim in detail considering the fact that his aim was not Connor but Barry. The fifth issue can be of trespass to person. Whether Alice can be held liable for (a) false imprisonment and (b) assault, when she threatened Dan with a blade pointed at his neck. Finally we raise the issue; since Connor was humiliated and embarrassed due to Alice’s actions, can Alice be sued for aggravated damages? The first issue that we’ll be analyzing is of battery. Whether we can question if Connor can be held liable for battery against Alice when he pushed her down to the ground in defense for battery.
A wrong of battery consists in intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. Elements of battery are as follows:
- An act which is intentional;
- By which contact is made by the claimant body;
- The contact must be direct;
- The contact with the claimant’s body must be hostile;
- The claimant did not consent to the contact.
When analyzing an issue, we must consider all the material fact given in the hypothetical. In the given facts we see that when Connor attacks Alice and pushes her to the ground, all the elements of battery are satisfied. However he attacks her for the defense of Connor which can qualify for defense against battery. Here the defense against battery is public defense. “It has already been said that in an action against trespass the burden to prove justification is on the defendant. ” Defenses to trespass to person can be (1) leave and license; (2) private defenses, trespass to person may be justifies on the grounds of (1) expulsion of trespass; (2) retaking of good; (3) lawful correction; (4) preservation of public peace; and (5) statutory authority.
“Preservation of public peace; a person who disturbs a public worship or public meeting or a lawful game can be lawfully removed. Here the force used should not be more than what is necessary. Every citizen in whose presence a breach of the peace is being, or reasonably appears to be about to be, committed has the right to take reasonable steps to make the person who is breaking or threatening to break the peace refrain from doing so; and those steps in appropriate cases will include detaining him against his will. ”
Just a belief that there might be future harm does not constitute “imminent danger, ” irrespective of the degree of harm of the future event. Rather, one must have a belief which is reasonable and which can be justified, that someone was in immediate danger. After stating this rule, let’s consider the facts stated in the hypothetical. Alice sees Barry waving at her from a distance. She doesn’t recognize who it is since she’s not wearing her prescribed glasses. she waves back in protest and starts running towards him. In this moment she happens to have her blade in her hands. The fact that Connor attacked Alice lacks a reasonable belief to do so because one can never tell the intentions of Alice. Glanville Williams has argued that morally and rationally the right to use force should extend to the protection of strangers; he calls this the "sensible view". The decision of Handcock v. Bakers provides a good example. A group of men intervened to prevent a man from killing his wife. Recognized the right to act in defense of a total stranger and held that the conduct of the men was justified. He added: "It is highly important that bystanders should know when they are authorized to interfere”. This appears to have been such a case because, according to the facts, "there was reasonable cause to presume that the wife's life could not have been otherwise preserved than by immediately breaking open the door and entering the said dwelling-house.
Looking at this judgment we can easily justify Connors act of battery against Alice since he has a reasonable belief to do so. Secondly the relation of Connor to Barry is immaterial since strangers can act upon a hostile environment when there is a reasonable cause of action. In the second part of this paper we will be analyzing the issue of whether Alice is liable to trespass to person, both (a) assault; as well as (b) false imprisonment. What’s an assault? An assault is an act of the defendant which causes to the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of the infliction of a battery on him by the defendant. The elements of assault are (1) act which is intentional; (2) imminent threat; (3) apprehension.
What’s false imprisonment? A defendant commits false imprisonment when he directly and intentionally imprisons the person. The elements of false imprisonment are as follows: (1) act which is intentional; (2) complete restraint; (3) absence of consent. When Alice stood over Dan, keeping him from moving or getting up as she points the blade at his neck. Alice angrily threatens; “keep trying to get up and you won’t like the consequences. ”
In Tuberville v. Savage it was held that a conditional threatening statement, without an imminent threat of harm, does not constitute an assault. Intention as well as the act makes an assault. In this case the defendant makes some insults on the plaintiff. Triggered by these insults the plaintiff picks up his sword and states “if it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you” the defendant responds in a hostile way, causing the plaintiff to lose his eye. The plaintiff brought an action for assault, battery, and wounding, to which the defendant pleaded provocation, to-wit the defendant’s statement.
In like manner, the Court held that the facts did not give ascend as the man only stipulated that he would have the goal to strike on the off chance that it were not assize-time. It was, for sure, assize-time and the man's revelation explicitly stipulated that he would not and did not plan to submit an attack. Subsequently, there could have been no attack as there were neither aims nor demonstration of strike, nor up and coming danger thereof. However in the hypothetical situation that we are dealing with, we can say that Alice’s threat amounts to an assault because she stipulated that she would harm him if he moved or continued trying to get on his feet. Also hen she did this she can be held liable for false imprisonment because all the elements of false imprisonment are being satisfied here. There’s an act; which is, she’s pointing her blade at him and threatening to harm him if he moves. Her words which imply this to an audience are “keep trying to get up and you won’t like the consequences. ” These lines and her act in the situation put together make her liable for assault as well as false imprisonment. To conclude, the paper shows a brief description of the hypothetical and recognizes all the claims that might arise through the facts.
The paper has analyzed two issues in depth and supports the analysis with cases brief and proper justifications. It comprises of comparisons with similar case proceedings. Each case has been shown in the footnotes and citations have been made. The analysis has been made using several books and reliable reference materials as sources.
