The tort of trespass against the person is the relevant issue here which consists of assault, battery ,false imprisonment and emotional suffering which can be identified in the first problem question.
RULES:
The Non-Fatal Offences against the Persons Act 1997 is the act which protects a person against the tort of trespass against a person. Battery is the direct application of physical contact upon the person of another without his or her consent, express or implied. It is contact which is outside of what is generally accepted in everyday life. Blackstone stated “The least touching of another’s person wilfully, or in anger ,is a battery ; for the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence and, therefore, totally prohibits
…show more content…
It can be caused when one intentionally or recklessly causes emotional suffering on another. To establish a claim for emotional suffering the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions were either intentional or reckless that caused this infliction of emotional stress. This tort of infliction of emotional suffering is evident in the case of Cronin v Kostal Ireland . An employee became severely depressed as a result of a suspension. Judge Haugh declared that “One is not entitled to seek damages for mere bad manners or mere sensitivity, but there is however an action known to the law of tort that entitles a person to compensation when they suffer a recognized psychiatric consequence of harassment ,that is inexcusable conduct intentionally or recklessly handed out. Before he can succeed in an action for the wilful or reckless infliction or emotional harm there must be a form of harassment or a form of misconduct formed on the part of the defendant that any right-minded right-thinking person would consider to be gratuitous or reprehensible. It must be done either with the intention of humiliating or embarrassing the butt of the harassment ,or it must be done where there is a risk of such an adverse reaction and that risk is unjustifiably