Brown Vs Smith

Decent Essays
Brown v Smith In the club bar Smith, by way of a practical joke, pulled a chair away just as Brown (the referee) was about to sit down, resulting in Brown falling over and striking his head on the floor. Therefore S. may be liable under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, in addition to battery. He will not be liable for assault since this requires reasonable apprehension by B and that does not seem to be the case. Battery has been defined earlier when discussing his liability for J’s injury, so although the elements from the criteria will not be repeated here it will still apply to this scenario. Both the act and immediate infliction can be dealt with together; in this case, the act of pulling the chair away was a positive act and was immediately inflicted since B. was about to sit down instantly, as a result of which he fell and injured his head. As for intention, its scope is argued to be wide enough to cover practical jokes (Williams v Humphrey); for example, pushing someone into the pool, or even an amicably intended kiss, can be argued to amount to battery. In this case, even if S. were to argue that,…show more content…
However, it is hard to establish the liability for this tort due to the low number of case-law, and even then, they are mostly conflicting. In Wainwright v Home Office, the courts have held that the defendant needs to at least have acted recklessly “without caring as to whether they caused harm”; simply emotional distress is not enough. This case approved the definition in Wong v Parkside NHS Trust, with the degree of harm being such that the defendant “cannot … say that he did not “mean” to do it” (the intention being a combination of likelihood of harm and deliberate engagement). More recently, in Rhodes v OPO it was held that the defendant must have intended to cause physical harm or severe mental or emotional
Get Access