Intentional Torts: Trespass to Person

Wrongs committed against persons, property, or goods, requiring a certain level of intent or knowledge.

Intentional tort protecting a person's physical and mental bodily integrity, and right to movement.

The defendant's mental state at the time of the act, requiring awareness of the act and its likely consequences.

Trespass requires intent; negligence is a careless act that causes harm.

A deliberate action, not an inaction; a crucial element of trespass.

A positive act and intention by the defendant, resulting in an injury to another.

A legally actionable act, even without proof of damage.

The aim of intentional torts is to safeguard the rights and interests of individuals regarding their persons, property, and possessions.

Intentionally and directly causing a person to apprehend an imminent application of force.

The defendant must intend to cause the plaintiff to apprehend an application of force.

The plaintiff must apprehend an impending application of force, assessed objectively.

The defendant must have the capability to carry out the threat.

The defendant's action must involve active behavior, not mere passivity.

The intentional and direct application of force to another person without their consent.

Battery protects the individual's right to bodily integrity from unlawful touching.

The defendant must have the intent to touch, have control over the contact, and apply force without consent.

A legal doctrine where a defendant is liable for an intentional tort they intended for one person but accidentally committed against another.

To apply transferred intent, ask: 1. Would the intended action have been a tort? 2. Would the action have been a tort if the actual victim was the intended target?

Battery requires a defendant's act to be voluntary and within their control. This means the defendant must have chosen to act.

Battery requires unwanted physical contact with the plaintiff or their clothing. The contact must be insulting or indignifying.

The contact in battery must be hostile. The defendant must understand their actions could be objected to.

No one can touch another person without consent or lawful justification. Everyday contact is generally acceptable, but not hostile.

A person with legal capacity can refuse even life-sustaining medical treatment, even if it leads to death.

Assault involves apprehension of imminent harm, while battery involves actual physical contact.

Intentionally and directly restraining a person's liberty without lawful justification, causing their confinement within a defined area.

1. Intentional act of restraint by the defendant. 2. Direct consequence of the defendant's action. 3. Complete restraint of the plaintiff's liberty.

The restraint must be intentional, not due to negligence. Intent is the defendant's awareness of their actions and their potential consequences.

Only the person directly causing the confinement can be held liable for false imprisonment, not someone who indirectly contributed.

The restraint must be total, preventing the plaintiff from leaving the defined area; a safe means of escape negates false imprisonment.

The plaintiff's awareness is NOT a necessary element of false imprisonment; confinement can occur even if they are unaware.

Entering an enclosed area under a contract does not automatically constitute false imprisonment, unless the contract is breached or the exit is unreasonably restricted.

Valid arrests by law enforcement officials (police, penghulu, magistrate) are not false imprisonment, if conducted lawfully with proper authority.

A landmark case establishing a tort for intentional indirect harm, where a defendant's act, calculated to cause harm, results in actual damage to the plaintiff.

A type of tort where a defendant intentionally causes harm to another person, but not through direct physical contact or interference. It focuses on the psychological impact.

Four elements must be proven: 1. A positive act or statement (not an omission). 2. The act is done wilfully and deliberately. 3. The act is calculated to cause harm. 4. Plaintiff suffers actual damage.

A case where a detective threatened a woman by falsely accusing her of being a spy, causing her nervous shock. The court held the defendant liable for intentional indirect harm.

A case highlighting the tort of harassment, where a persistent and unwanted acts by the defendant caused the plaintiff significant distress and fear.

A case where a woman obtained an injunction against a man who was harassing her, showing the court's willingness to protect individuals from distressing behaviour.

Trespass to person deals with direct physical interference, while Wilkinson v Downton concerns intentional indirect harm caused by deliberate acts that cause psychological distress or harm.

Intentional indirect harm requires a deliberate act, meaning the defendant intended to cause some form of harm, no matter how slight. Negligence involves carelessness, where the defendant did not intend to cause harm.