MID TERM EXAMINATION(1555 words)
1). Kevin V David.
ISSUE :- Can Kevin bring a claim for assault against David ?
RULE :- Assault is an act of the Defendant which causes to the Plaintiff reasonable apprehension of the infliction of a battery on him by the Defendant.
ANALYSIS :- In the case of Stephens V Myers, the Defendant advancing with clinched fist upon the Claimant at a Parish meeting was stopped by the Church Warden who sat nearby the Claimant. The Defendant was held to be liable for assault.
In the facts of this case, David swung one of the golf club from corner of office upon Kevin. Kevin however escaped. His intention to hit Kevin was to cause harm the way he swung the golf club at Kevin., therefore, the first element of assault, i.e.the intention to cause harm to Kevin is met. The second part of assault, i.e.reasonable apprehension of immediate fear is proved when Kevin tried to save himself from such likely harm.
CONCLUSION :- David has committed the tort of assault and Kevin is accordingly entitled to damages for the same.
2.Kevin V David.
ISSUE :- Can Kevin bring a claim for battery against David ?
RULE :- The wrong of Battery consist in intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. It’s essential requirements are 1). there should be use of force and 2). the same should be without any lawful justification.
ANALYSIS :- In the facts of this case, David with an intention to win the match desperately used an iron rod lying near the boxing ring to hit Kevin on his head as he was losing the fight with Kevin and caused injury. The intention to commit wrong is clear and the resultant injury to Kevin.
In the case of Clark V State, it was held that the contact does not have to involve literally the Defendants body coming into contact with the Claimants body. There is a battery even when the Defendant shoots the Claimant from a distance just as much as when he strikes him with his fist. In the present case also, David hit Kevin with a rod and caused injury without direct physical contact.
CONCLUSION :- David has committed the tort of battery and Kevin is accordingly entitled to damages for the same.
3.Ben V David.
ISSUE :- Can Ben bring a claim for trespass to chattels against David ?
RULE :- It is direct physical interference with the goods which are in Plaintiff’s possession without any lawful justification.
ANALYSIS :- In the facts of this case, David in fit of rage smashed LED Light in the Gym of Ben and damaged the same.
In the case of Everitt V Martin and Slater V Swan, it was held that though trespass is actionable perse, there is some authority to the effect the trespass to goods requires proof of some damage. In the present case, the LED light was completely damaged.
Trespass to goods is a wrongful physical interference with them. In this case, the principle that was laid down is that unlawful interference with the goods of others is an act of tort. In the present case, David damaged the LED light of Ben, thereby caused unlawful interference.
CONCLUSION :- David has committed the tort of trespass to goods by causing damage to Led Light and Ben therefore entitled for damages.
4.Peter V David.
ISSUE :- Can Peter bring a claim for false imprisonment against David ?
RULE :- False imprisonment consists in the imposition of total restraint for some period however short upon the liberty of another without sufficient lawful justification.7
ANALYSIS :- In the facts of this case, Peter went into a cabin and locked the door behind him to compose himself. He was unaware that David was standing outside to prevent him from moving out. Even before Peter came out, David left. Peter was never under an impression that he was wrongfully confined.
In the case of Herring V Boyle, it has been held that knowledge with regard to restraint is essential. In the present case also Peter was not cognizant of any restraint upon him.
CONCLUSION :- David has not committed any act of false imprisonment as he did not physically imprison Peter and even left before Peter came out of the room. The claim of Peter is accordingly rejected.
5.David V Kevin.
ISSUE :- Can David bring a claim for conversion against Kevin ?
RULE :- Conversion may be committed in so many different ways that any comprehensive definition is probably impossible, but the wrong is committed by dealing with the goods of a person which deprives him of the use or possession of goods.
ANALYSIS :- In the facts of this case, Kevin removed the painting of David from his cabin without his consent and knowledge and kept the same in his custody. Kevin deprived David of the use and custody of his painting intentionally.
In the case of Yaeger v. Magna Corp.,it is held that the essence of a conversion is not the acquisition of property but the wrongful deprivation of that property from its true owner.
In the case of People v. Fielden, it is held that an essential element of the crime of criminal conversion is that the property must be owned by another and the conversion thereof must be without the consent and against the will of the party to whom the property belongs, coupled with the fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of the property. It is not uncommon for a plaintiff to seek both criminal prosecution of the defendant and to file for civil relief concurrently. In such cases, punitive damages are also often sought.
In the present case, Kevin removed the painting from the chamber of David and thereby deprived David of the painting. Such wrongful act makes him liable for punitive damages.
CONCLUSION :- Kevin dealt with the painting of David by removal and thereby deprived David of its use and possession. David is therefore entitled for damages against Kevin.
6.Peter V David.
ISSUE :- Can Peter bring a claim for harassment against David ?
RULE :- It is an offence to pursue a course of conduct which the Defendant knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of another as per Section 1 and 3 of Protection from Harassment Act, 1997.
ANALYSIS :- In the facts of this case, David was annoyed as Peter gave preference to the work of Kevin than the work given by him. David, therefore, abused Peter and further held out a threat to make Peter to suffer. The abuses made Peter to suffer and the threats caused mental agony to him.
In the case of Hayes V Willoughby, Lord Sumption SCJ, told harassment is a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct targeted at another person which is calculated to and thus cause that person alarm, fear or distress.
In the present case, David persistently acted in an unreasonable and oppressive manner and targeted Peter by abusing him and further started hiding Peter’s belongings and even padlocked his motor scooter to a street lamp, so that Peter could not unlock it. These acts of David clearly establish of his harassment.
CONCLUSION :- David committed an act of harassment in a deliberate manner and because of the threat held out by him, fear and distress caused to Peter. Peter is therefore entitled for damages.
7.David V Kevin.
ISSUE :- Can David bring a claim for battery against Kevin ?
RULE :- The wrong of Battery consist in intentional application of force to another person without any lawful justification. It’s essential requirements are 1). there should be use of force and 2). the same should be without any lawful justification.2
ANALYSIS :- In the facts of this case, on being confronted with regard to harassment of Peter, a heated exchange ensued between Kevin and David. Both of them lost their temper and Kevin squeezed David’s hand and pushed him over, thereby, caused bodily harm.
In Cole V Turner case, it was decided that even though the force used is very trivial in nature and does not cause any harm, the wrong is still constituted. Physical hurt need not be there. Lease touching of another in anger is a battery.
In the present case, Kevin though in a fit of anger twisted the arm of David. David did not suffer any major injury and the harm is trivial, but, still, Kevin is liable.
CONCLUSION :- Kevin is liable for battery. David is therefore entitled for damages.
I undertake that the coursework presented here is my own work and is, with the exception of attributed quotations, written in my own words. All quotations have been placed within quotation marks and referenced.
I have not copied or paraphrased the words of any author, published or unpublished, without attribution.
I also declare that the total number of words used in my coursework assignment does not exceed 1,500 words.
Student Name: VELAGAPUDI HARSHITHA
Student ID: 18010165
Course: BBA LLB(HONS)
Word Count: 1555 WORDS(INCLUDING FOOT NOTES)