This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

#6551 - Defences To Battery - Intentional Torts

Notice: PDF Preview
The following is a more accessible 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.
See Original
DEFENCES TO BATTERY * * * * * Consent Lawful justification Self--defence and Defence of Another o Specific to battery Necessity Good Samaritan/Volunteer 14 | INTENTIONAL TORTS DEFENCE: CONSENT TO CONTACT * * * 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. Fraud: o if D fraudulently misrepresents the nature of the act, P does not consent. 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 ...' INTENTIONAL TORTS | 15
Unlock the full document,
purchase it now!
Intentional Torts
Target a first in law with Oxbridge