Scribd
Upload
20 views3 pages

Assault and Battery (As PDF

Uploaded by

Siyaa Karkera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
20 views3 pages

Assault and Battery (As PDF

Uploaded by

Siyaa Karkera
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Assault and Battery

Tuesday, October 11, 2022 8:43 PM

There are three main wrongs which fall under the umbrella of trespass to the person: assault, battery
and false imprisonment. They are intentional torts, meaning they cannot be committed by accident.
Although these descriptions sound like they are crimes, and indeed do share their names with some
crimes, it is important to remember that these are civil wrongs and not criminal wrongs. A person liable
in tort for assault, battery or false imprisonment will not face a sentence. Instead, they will be ordered
to pay damages to their victim.

Assault:
Assault means physical contact. But in tort, an assault occurs when a person apprehends immediate and
unlawful physical contact. In other words, fearing that you are about to be physically attacked makes
you the victim of an assault. It is also necessary that an attack can actually take place. If an attack is
impossible, then despite a person’s apprehension of physical contact there can be no assault. So a
person waving a stick and chasing after another person who is driving away in a car would not be an
assault. It is also generally thought that words alone cannot constitute an assault, but if accompanied by
threatening behaviour the tort may have been committed.

Elements of Assault
If one or more elements have not been satisfied then It can be a defense to an assault charge. Elements
of the crime of assault are:
An act or conduct intended to created: To prove a criminal attack, the defendants’ behaviour must be
motivated to create a situation of fear or danger in the victim’s mind. Accident acts do not include
allegations of assault.
A reasonable apprehension: Further, the victim must reasonably believe that the defendant’s conduct
will harm or humiliate him. The victim must understand the defendant’s potentially harmful or offensive
acts.
Of imminent harm: The victim’s fear must be a direct response to a threat that is imminent. Future
threats, such as “I will beat you tomorrow”, will not result in assault charges. In addition, there must be
some kind of perceived physical threat to the victim in the loss; For this reason, words by themselves
generally do not constitute an attack.

It is believed that the defendant’s actions would cause physical danger or abusive behaviour to the
victim. Thus, the pretence of kicking or punching the victim may be an attack, as will attempt to spit on
the victim (aggressive behaviour). All of the above elements must be present and the evidence must be
supported with evidence if found guilty for the attack. It can be difficult to prove whether the defendant
actually intended the attack. Similarly, judges often spend a lot of time determining whether a
defendant’s actions are considered harmful or abusive. In determining this, they will consider what an
average person may perceive as harmful or aggressive.

Legal defenses on charges of Assault


As with other types of criminal charges, there may be some defenses to assault charges. This will
depend on each individual case, as well as other factors such as state law. Faults commonly charged
with assault charges include:
1. Self-defense: This could be a defense if the defendant was acting out of selfdefense. They should only
use the amount or display of force that is appropriate in the situation and in proportion to the force
being used against them.
2. Intoxication: In some cases, intoxication can be a legal defense, especially in cases where intoxication
affects a person’s ability to act intentionally.
3. Coercion: This may be a defense if the defendant was forced to attack under threat of harm (for
example, if they are being held at gunpoint and for assault at the behest of someone).
4. Lack of proof / proof: As stated above, if the elements of proof are not found or supported with the

Law of torts Page 1


4. Lack of proof / proof: As stated above, if the elements of proof are not found or supported with the
correct evidence, it can serve as a legal defense.
Landmark case:
R. V. Constanza A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague.
For a period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous silent
phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without consent, and
wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times. Following these actions, she received two
additional letters with threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from
clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the man’s actions and letters. A man
was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. For a period of almost
two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous silent phone calls, wrote her
over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without consent, and wrote offensive words on
her house’s door three times. Following these actions, she received two additional letters with
threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and
anxiety due to apprehended fear caused by the man’s actions and letters.

Battery
It is an intentional application of force to another person without lawful
justification. It is the actual application of force to the person of another, done without
justification, in a rude, angry, insolent or revengeful manner. In other words, the intention of application
of force to the person of another without lawful justification, however, trivial the amount or nature of
the force may be, constitutes the wrong of battery.
It has been laid down in Wilson v. Pringle, that for the purposes of battery the required intention is to
touch the person of another unlawfully and it is not necessary that there should be intention to cause
any harm.

Ingredients of battery:
1) The use of force to him, either to his body, for ex: slapping or pushing; or
bringing an object in contact with his body, for ex: throwing water on
him;
In Nash v. Sheen, (1953)C.L.Y. 3726, the plaintiff, a lady, went to a hair-
dressing parlor for a permanent wave (curly hair) & the defendant without

her consent, applied a ‘tone-rinse’ which produced a skin reaction &


painful rash all over her body. The defendant was held liable for battery as
the plaintiff had consented only for a permanent wave in her hair and not
for dying with coloring matter which caused her rashes.

2) That the use of force was intentional, i.e., without any lawful justification
Hurstv. PicturesTheatersLtd.,
• The plaintiff had a valid ticket fora seat in a cinema theater but he was
forcibly turned out from his seat by the theater employee who was acting
under a mistaken belief that the plaintiff had entered the show without
paying for his seat.
• It was held that the defendant was liable to pay damages for assault and
battery.

3) The force must be applied against the plaintiff without his consent,
expressor implied.
Sitaram v. Jaswant Singh, The High Court of Nagpur held that an occupier of land no doubt, has
right to expel the trespasser from his land but the force used for this
purpose should be reasonable and not exceed more than what may be
justified in those circumstances.
In this case, the defendant assaulted the plaintiff with an axe blow which

Law of torts Page 2


In this case, the defendant assaulted the plaintiff with an axe blow which
caused injury to vital part of his body. Therefore, the defendant was held
liable for physical assault and battery.

DEFENSES TO AN ACTION FOR ASSAULT & BATTERY

1) Self defence: reasonable force used to protect one’s own person or


property is justified in self defence.
2) Expulsion of trespasser: assault & battery committed in course of ousting a
trespasser is justifiable.
3) Recapture of goods: the rightful owner or his servant may justify use of force
in order to re-take or repossess himself of land, goods or any other chattel.
4) Parental or quasi-parental Authority: any mild force used for the correction
of child, apprentice etc. is justified.
5) Leave & Licence: voluntary consent of the plaintiff to the defendant’s act of
assault or battery will be a good defence for the defendant to insulate
himself from liability.
6) Legal process: any physical force used in exercise of some legal duty or
performance of legitimate functions assigned to the defendant, shall not be
actionable as assault or battery.
7) Preservation of public peace: where the defendant can show that the use
of reasonable force by him was to preserve public peace and prevent
violence at a public place, it will be a valid defence for him to escape
liability for his act.

Conclusion:

Law of torts Page 3

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy