Torts Notes

If there was no warrant for John's arrest this hearing will also determine if there is probable cause (Gerstein v. Pugh). Probable cause means that a reasonable ground exists for belief in the facts.

Among other charges, the plaintiff alleges battery or trespass as one of the offenses committed by the defendant. The question now becomes what constitutes a charge of battery and or trespass and does this embody any of the elements or circumstances that may apply to this particular case. According to criminal law, a battery is defined as both a tort and a crime, and involves the unlawful or unwanted physical contact of another person. This is supported by the reading, “Battery is the actual touching” (Showalter, 2017, pg.127). A trespass to person is any act that excites an apprehension of battery. This is supported by the text, “Trespass to the person is a tort which involves wrongs being done to an individual” (Trespass to the person,

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

Nicole can also sue Caroline for assault on the fact that she threw her shoe at her, which caused her a reasonable apprehension of harm, even though the shoe did not hit her. This is reinforced using the case of Stephens v Myers as assault without battery. Also for an assault to be committed there must be ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ which is present in this scenario even though Caroline may try to hide under the protection of self-defence. That may not be possible because, there is a principle in self-defence that says both the action and reaction has to be proportionate. The case of Lane v Holloway supports this. In Cockcroft v Smith according to Holt CJ “hitting a man a little blow with a little stick on the shoulder, is not a reason for him to draw a sword and cut and hew the other”. The remedy available for this is damage and maybe damage and injunction if the court thinks that Caroline may want to retaliate still.

Would any of the following actions cause a statement of a suspect to be involuntary?

38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?

Identify the battery issue involving defendants Green and DeVon in the case of Paur v. Rose City Dodge, Inc

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

B. Battery. A battery is a volitional act by the defendant which intentionally causes the

Or simply called, assault is the attempt to commit battery or do bodily harm. This is an act that is made to create fear of injury on a victim. You might be wondering if an actual physical contact is needed to find that a person is guilty of the crime – misdemeanor assault; the fact is, you don’t need to.

The plaintiff is bringing an action against the defendant for battery because the plaintiff believes that the defendant meant to intentionally push the plaintiff without consent.

Assault is caused if a person intentionally or recklessly does an act which makes the victim fear and expect of immediate, unlawful physical violence.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

It has been held that some material should be present to prove that the witness has gone back from his earlier statement or has shown