Chatterton v. Gerson 1980

A woman had an operation; the operation made her disease even worse.
She claimed that she had not been informed sufficiently about the risks of the operation.

No battery, no damages.

Doctors do not have to give you information about all the risks.

Cole v. Turner 1704

The least touching of another in anger is a battery.

Defences: DONNELY v. JACKSON (1970)

Collins v. Wilcock 1984

A police officer thought that a woman was soliciting.
He wanted her to stay, but she went away.
He took her arm, she scratched him.
First, the woman was sentenced, but she appealed.

Battery on part of the policeman.

He should have said that he wanted to arrest the woman.
For cops, compare: DONNELY v. JACKSON (1970)

Donnely v. Jackson 1970

Jackman was a police officer who suspected that Donnely had committed an offence.
Jackman tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'I want to talk to you'. Donnely said, 'Go away'.
Jackman tapped him again. Donnely turned away and hit him so that he fell on the pavement.

Jackman was correct in tapping Donnely on the shoulder.

CON The least touching in anger is a battery - COLE v. TURNER (1704)
But this was part of his daily job.
For cops, compare
For defences, compare

Fowler v. Lanning 1959 Court of Appeal

B shot A during a shooting party.
A claimed in trespass, alleging only the fact of the shooting, and leaving it to B to justify the conduct (as by proof that it was an accident).

No trespass to the person unless A could establish in B intention.
Or negligence, for that tort.

Change in law: trespass to the person restricted to intentional acts (later so clarified) in LETANG v. COOPER (1965)

Leigh v. Gladstone 1909

Leigh was imprisoned and went on hunger strike.
She was forcibly fed by warders.
She sued the prison staff for assault and battery.

The defence of necessity was good.

Had the prison staff not fed the plaintiff she would have died.
For defences, compare: DONNELY v. JACKSON (1970)

Letang v. Cooper 1965 Court of Appeal

In a car park, a car drove over the woman's legs.
The woman came to court 3 years after the accident (negligence: 3 years limitation period; trespass: 6 years).
Negligence or trespass to the person (battery)?

She lost for it was a negligence case.

Lord Denning: where the damage is direct and intentional, it is a trespass, where it is unintentional and negligent, it is negligence.
Per-se torts favour the plaintiff, because they henceforth have not to show damages. 'He who brings the case has to show' (the plaintiff has to show now).
FOWLER v. LANNING (1959) confirmed. Out: STAINLEY v. POWEL (1891)

Lewis v. Brookshaw 1970

A man was injured within a soccer game.

L 4,500 in damages were awarded for battery.

If injuries are outside the rules of the game they do not have to be taken.

Re F. (?) 1990 House of Lords

Obiter: judges doubted if the decision of WILSON v PRINGLE (1986) was right.
If you say there has to be hostility you do not save people enough from being touched.
Judge Cardozo: you should not be touched by anyone if you do not consent.
Sport: are you injured in the rules of the game or are you injured because someone wants you to?

Stainley v. Powell 1891

P, a member of a shooting party, fired a shotgun and a pellet hit a tree and ricocheted into the eye of the beater, S, who was working with the shooting party.

P was not liable to S for trespass (battery).

S had failed to establish that P had been negligent.
This overruled WEAVER v. WARD (1616)
Reversed again in
FOWLER v. LANNING (1959); the latter confirmed in LETANG v. COOPER (1965)

Weaver v. Ward 1616

A man made military exercises with loaded weapons.
P shot D, saying that it had happened entirely without his fault and intention.

No battery.

For battery, D would have to show that it happened intentionally.
Extended to negligence in
STAINLEY v. POWELL (1891) ; but again restricted in FOWLER v. LANNING (1959) and LETANG v. COOPER (1965)

Wilkinson v. Downtown 1897

A man (joking) told a woman that her husband had been badly injured and gave her strict instructions what to do.
She got a nervous shock.

No trespass to the person (indirect act).
No tort of negligence (this category had not been developed before 1932).
But tort of intentional injury (rule developed here).

He could have foreseen that somebody can be injured by this joke.
Therefore tort for intentional injury (kind of unclassified tort).
This rule was applied in
KHORASANDJIAN v. BUSH (1993) (nuisance) and in JANVIER v. SWEENY (1919) (assault)

Wilson v. Pringle 1986 Court of Appeal

A boy went to school, having his bag over his shoulder.
Boys came and told him that it was not allowed to take the bag over the shoulder and hit him on the floor.

The question whether there is horse-play or hostile battery has to be decided by the situation that is given (open).

If you say there has to be hostility you do not save people enough from being touched if they do not want to be touched.
Ratio decidendi questioned in RE F (?) (1990)