Skip to content
MarkSchemeMarkScheme
Sign up — no card

9084 · 4.3.2

Battery — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9084 Battery. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

A shop security guard grabs a customer's arm firmly and searches her bag without reasonable grounds, causing bruising. The customer consented to enter the shop but not to physical restraint. Advise on battery. [12 marks]

Show solution outline

Elements:

  1. Direct application of force: Grabbing arm and searching bag — direct physical contact (Cole v Turner — least touching).
  2. Intentional: Guard intended to grab and search — satisfies intent (Letang v Cooper — accidental contact in negligence context differs).
  3. Unlawful / no justification:
    • Consent: Entering shop ≠ consent to restraint (Collins v Wilcock — implied consent covers normal shopping contact, not forceful grabs).
    • Citizen's arrest / shopkeeper's privilege: Requires reasonable grounds for theft — if none, no lawful authority.
  4. Hostility: Firm grab causing bruising exceeds everyday jostling — hostile in context (Wilson v Pringle — horseplay vs deliberate restraint).

Assault? Customer may also have apprehended immediate force when grabbed — dual liability possible (4.3.1).

Defences: Self-defence fails unless customer threatened guard.

Remedy: Damages for bruising (general) and any medical costs (special).

Conclusion: Guard likely committed battery — compare lawful detention with reasonable suspicion vs unlawful force.

Worked example 2

Priya, a freelance photographer earning £600 per week, is attending a public event. A security guard, Dave, mistakenly believes she is trespassing and shoves her forcefully. Priya falls, sustaining a simple fracture to her wrist. She is unable to work for 5 weeks. Her medical prescription costs are £35, and she spends £60 on taxis to and from the hospital. The accepted general damages award for a simple wrist fracture is £7,500. Advise Priya on her claim for battery and calculate the total damages she could be awarded. [15 marks]

Show solution outline

Part 1: Establishing Liability for Battery

First, we must establish if Dave's actions constitute battery.

  1. Direct and Intentional Force: Dave's shove was a direct application of force. The act was intentional, as he intended to make physical contact with Priya, even if he did not intend to cause the fracture (Letang v Cooper).
  2. Unlawful Force: The force was unlawful as Priya was not trespassing, and Dave had no lawful authority (like a valid citizen's arrest) to use force. The contact goes far beyond the 'exigencies of everyday life' (Collins v Wilcock).

Conclusion on Liability: Dave has committed the tort of battery against Priya. As battery is actionable per se, Priya has a claim regardless of the injury, but the injury will determine the quantum of damages.

Part 2: Calculation of Damages

Damages aim to restore the claimant to their pre-tort position. They are divided into special and general damages.

  • Step 1: Calculate Special Damages (Quantifiable Financial Losses) These are the specific, out-of-pocket expenses Priya incurred.

    • Loss of Earnings: 5 weeks × £600/week = £3,000
    • Prescription Costs: £35
    • Travel Costs (Taxis): £60
    • Total Special Damages: £3,000 + £35 + £60 = £3,095

  • Step 2: Assess General Damages (Non-Financial Losses) These are for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity (PSLA). The question states the accepted figure for this injury.

    • Total General Damages: £7,500

  • Step 3: Calculate Total Damages Award This is the sum of special and general damages.

    • Total Damages = Total Special Damages + Total General Damages
    • Total Damages = £3,095 + £7,500 = £10,595

Final Conclusion: Priya is highly likely to succeed in her claim for battery and would be advised that she could be awarded approximately £10,595 in total damages.

Mark a 9084 question on this topicFull lessonOpen in course studio