Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Defences To Battery Notes

Law Notes > Intentional Torts Notes

This is an extract of our Defences To Battery document, which we sell as part of our Intentional Torts Notes collection written by the top tier of Griffith University students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Intentional Torts Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:


* * * * * Consent
Lawful justification
Self--defence and Defence of Another
o Specific to battery
Good Samaritan/Volunteer

* * * The 'gist' of trespass is the lack of consent.
This means that, if there is consent to contact, then the act may be lawful
o Consent is generally viewed as a complete defence to battery.
It is the D that has the burden of proving that the P consented to the
tortious act ie the interference:
o Sibley v Milutinaovic ; Hart v Heron; Platt v Nutt

Consent and Medical Treatment:
* Competent adults
o In the absence of consent (or legal justification or statutory
authorisation) a medical practitioner may commit battery (even if
the procedure benefits the patient); and it is a battery if the
practitioner carries out a procedure that goes beyond the P's
express consent.
Rogers v Whitaker
* D operated on P's eye
o did not inform P of risk of complications for other eye * In order to give 'real' consent for the purposes of battery the person
need to be informed in broad terms of:
o the nature of the physical contact,
o its site
o its general purpose
o any major risk associated with it.
* * * Children:
o Parents give consent to medical treatment for very young children,
but parental power diminishes as the child's capacity and maturity
grow - to consent the child must understand nature of the
treatment and its consequences, and the concept of consent.
o if D fraudulently misrepresents the nature of the act, P does not
Implied consent:
o see the sports cases, which are based on implied consent.
Doctrine of ordinary exigencies of life:
o see Collins v Wilcock:
SS? 'most of the physical contacts in ordinary life are not
actionable because they are impliedly consented to by all
who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of
bodily contact. So nobody can complain of the jostling
which is inevitable from his presence in, for example, a
supermarket ...'


Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Intentional Torts Notes.