Tort Of Trespass

Trespass consists of a number of distinct torts including: battery, assault, false imprisionmnet, trespass to land and trespass to chattels. rThe tort of trespass has many distinct characteristics such as Actionable per se: This states that trespass actions protect fundamental civil liberties, such as automy, security and dignity in respect of one’s personal property and the significance of such rights is duly recognised by the fact that trespass actions do not require proof of damage. Direct Result/Impact: This is an action in trespass which exists only where the ‘trespass’ is the direct result of a voluntary act. Salmond & Heuston’s definition:‘An injury is said to be direct when it follows so immediately upon the act of the defendant that

It can be defined as: Any act of the defendant which directly and intentionally causes the plaintiff immediately to apprehend a contact with his person. In general words will not amount to an assault unless they are accompanied by actions which could be perceived as a possible assault. . The essential feature of this tort is the mental impact on the plaintiff, who must perceive the likelihood of imminent battery. This belief must be reasonable, in light of all the circumstances, and is not dependent on the defendant’s actual intention or ability to implement the threatened contract. Thus, a person who employs threats or intimidating gestures without any intention of implementing the threatened harm commits an assault, unless the intention not to pursue is reasonably apparent. Application: Anne is receiving “threatening phone calls”, this act does constitute an assault. The caller can be convicted under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 as in the case R v Ireland . Anne lives alone and so receiving numerous threatening phone calls will have a mental impact on her as she believes she is more at risk of an imminent battery. Even though Anne knows the caller, they are still commiting an assault as they are employing threats.

Consciousness of confinement does not appear to be a requisite element of the tort, though the level of compensation would be less for a person who was not conscious of the confinement.

Battery is the direct application of physical contact upon the person of another without his or her consent, express or implied

Application:

The bouncer initially causes the confinement of Anne to the back room. He restrains her to the area by telling her to ‘stay or else’. As in the case Dullaghan v Hillen. The security guard robbed her of total restraint and liberty as in the case. The security guard detained her movement in all directions and Anne was constrained to the walls of the back room supported by the case Bird v Jones . The security man implied physical contact on Anne without her consent committing a battery on her as supported by the caseWhite v Store Security. Conclusion: Anne was falsely imprisoned by the security guard and a battery was committed upon her. She has the legal rights to sue under the tort of trespass for