Skip to main content

Trespass

 Trespass


The chief forms of Trespass are: battery, assault and false imprisonment.


Battery:

A battery is “intentional and direct application of force on another person without any lawful justification”. Use of force, however trivial it may be, physical hurt need not be there.

Least touching is of another in anger is a battery.

Battery requires actual contact (may be indirect) with the body of another person so a sizing and laying hold of a person so as to restrain him, spitting in his face, throwing over a chair or carriage in which another person is sitting, throwing water over a person, taking a person by the collar, causing another to be medically examined against his or her will, are all held to amount to battery.

The force may be used through any object like stick, bullet, or any other missile, infection of heat, light, electricity, gas, odour, etc. would probably be battery if it can result in physical injury or personal discomfort.

Mere passive obstruction, like a door or wall, however, cannot be considered as the use of force, a policeman unlawfully prevented the plaintiff from entering the club premises. The plaintiff who had purchased a ticket for a seat at a movie show, was forcibly turned out of a seat by the direction of the manager, who was acting under a mistaken belief that the plaintiff had not paid for his seat.

It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for battery and assault. If the plaintiff had been without ticket the use of force would be justified.


Assault:

Assault is an act of the defendant which causes the plaintiff reasonable apprehension of the infection of battery on him by the defendant. 

Assault is an attempt or a threat to do a corporeal corporate another, coupled with an apparent present ability and intention to do the act.

The menacing attitude and hostile purpose go to make the assault unlawful; the actual contact is not necessary in an assault.

The word “assault” is incorrectly used by the laymen as meaning the actual infliction of force by one person on another such as when A beats B. 

Thus, “popular assault begins when legal assault ends”.

The wrong consists in an attempt to do the harm rather than the harm being caused thereby.

Pointing a loaded pistol at another is an assault. If the pistol is not loaded then even it may be termed as assault. If the pistol is not loaded then even it may be termed as an assault, If pointed at such a distance that, if loaded, it may cause injury. (R. v. S. George). 

The test is whether an apprehension has been created in the plaintiff's mind that battery is going to be committed against him. If the plaintiff knows that the pistil is unloaded there is no assault.


Distinction between Assault and Battery:

In assault, actual contact or infliction of force is not necessary though it is in a battery. Generally assault proceeds battery. 

Showing clenched fist is an assault but actually striking amounts to battery. Throwing water on a person is an assault but as soon as the water falls on him, it becomes battery. If a person is about to sit on a chair and chair is pulled, there is an assault so long as he is in the process of falling on the ground but as soon as his body touches the floor it will be battery. It is, however, not necessary that every battery should include assault. 

A blow from behind without the prior knowledge of the person who is hit, results in a battery without being preceded by an assault.

It may be noted that besides civil action for an assault and battery the criminal proceedings may also be taken against the wrongdoer.

Assault is defined in the Indian Penal Code Section. 351, while battery is equivalent to criminal force which is defined in Section. 350, Indian Penal Code.


False imprisonment:

False imprisonment consists in the imposition of a total restraint for some period, however short, upon the liberty of another, without sufficient lawful justification.

“Every restraint on the liberty of one person by another is in law and imprisonment and, if imposed without lawful cause, constitutes a false imprisonment which is both a criminal offence and an actionable tort.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more