9084 · 4.3.2
Battery flashcards
Revision flashcards for Cambridge 9084 Battery (syllabus 4.3.2). Flip, recall, then mark a real past-paper question.
Card
Battery in tort definition?
Intentional direct application of force to another without lawful justification — contact however slight (Cole v Turner).
Card
Direct contact requirement?
Force must be directly applied — setting trap causing injury later may be negligence, not battery (Letang v Cooper).
Card
Collins v Wilcock?
Police officer grabbing arm without arrest power — everyday jostling tolerated but deliberate restraint without authority = battery.
Card
Wilson v Pringle?
Schoolboy tug — contact in ordinary horseplay may not be hostile; context matters for everyday contact.
Card
Consent and battery?
Valid consent (express/implied) or necessity (medical emergency) defeats battery — contact must be unlawful.
Card
Transferred intent?
D intending to touch A but touching B — battery against B if intent to apply force (Livingstone v MOD — baton blow).
Card
What is the definition of battery in tort law?
The direct and intentional application of unlawful force to another person. It is actionable per se. (Key case: *Collins v Wilcock*).
Card
Does the 'force' in battery need to be violent or cause injury?
No. The slightest physical contact can constitute force, provided it is unlawful. The principle is that any touching can be a battery if it goes beyond what is generally acceptable in everyday life.
Card
What is the required mental element for the tort of battery?
The defendant must have intended the physical contact. A negligent or reckless act is insufficient for the tort of battery; it would be pursued under the tort of negligence. The key case is *Letang v Cooper*.
Card
What is the significance of the phrase 'actionable per se' in relation to battery?
It means the claimant does not need to prove they have suffered any injury or damage. The act of unlawful touching itself is the tort, as it violates the claimant's right to bodily integrity.
Card
How does the doctrine of 'transferred malice' apply to battery?
If a defendant intends to apply force to one person but accidentally applies it to another, the intention is 'transferred' to the actual victim, who can then bring a claim for battery. (Key case: *Livingstone v Ministry of Defence*).
Card
What is the rule on omissions and battery?
An omission cannot constitute a battery. There must be a positive act by the defendant. In *Innes v Wylie*, a policeman who simply stood in a doorway and blocked the claimant's path was held not to have committed a battery.
Card
What is the test for valid consent in medical treatment cases?
The patient must be informed in broad terms of the nature of the procedure. If so, consent is real and a claim for battery will fail. A claim for failure to disclose risks would be in negligence. (*Chatterton v Gerson*).
Card
What are 'special damages'?
Quantifiable financial losses incurred by the claimant up to the date of the trial, such as loss of earnings, medical expenses, and travel costs.
Card
What are 'general damages'?
Damages awarded for non-quantifiable losses, such as pain, suffering, and loss of amenity (PSLA), as well as future financial losses.