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 was correct in tapping Donnely on the shoulder.
CON The least touching in anger is a battery -COLE v. TURNER (1704)
Fowler v. Lanning 1959 Court of Appeal
B shot A during a shooting party.
No trespass to the person unless A could establish in B intention.
Change in law: trespass to the person restricted to intentional acts (later so clarified) inLETANG v. COOPER (1965)
Leigh v. Gladstone 1909
Leigh was imprisoned and went on hunger strike.
The defence of necessity was good.
Had the prison staff not fed the plaintiff she would have died.
Letang v. Cooper 1965 Court of Appeal
In a car park, a car drove over the woman's legs.
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).
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 ofWILSON v PRINGLE (1986) was right.
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.
Weaver v. Ward 1616
A man made military exercises with loaded weapons.
For battery, D would have to show that it happened intentionally.
Extended to negligence in
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.
No trespass to the person (indirect act).
He could have foreseen that somebody can be injured by this joke.
Wilson v. Pringle 1986 Court of Appeal
A boy went to school, having his bag over his shoulder.
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.