Law of Torts Cases on Defenses To Assault And Battery

Christopherson v. Bare

Court: Court

Year: 1848

Principle(s): An assault must be an act done against the will of the party assaulted: and therefore it cannot be said that a party has been assaulted by his own permission or consent

R v Williams

Court: Kings Bench

Year: 1923

Principle(s): Consent procured by deceit is not valid to serve as a defense in an action for trespass to the person

Collins v Wilcock

Court: Court

Year: 1984

Principle(s): 1. Any touching of another person, however slight, may amount to battery. 2. Battery is not only committed when the action is ‘angry, revengeful, rude, or insolent’. A peaceful touch may amount to a battery. 3. It does not amount to a battery if children are reasonably punished. 4. It does not amount to a battery if one uses reasonable force in self-defense or to prevent a crime. 5. A general defense to an action for battery is consent. This may be express or implied. 6. Bodily 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.

F v. West Berkshire Health Authority

Court: House of Lords

Year:

Principle(s): 1. Generally, it constitutes trespass to touch or perform an operation on a person without his consent. 2. However, in instances where a person is unable to consent, he or she may be touched or operated on if doing so is in his or her best interest. 3. A touch does not have to be hostile to constitute battery. Per Lord Goff, "A prank that gets out of hand, an over-friendly slap on the back, surgical treatment by a surgeon who mistakenly thinks that the patient has consented to it, all these things may transcend the bounds of lawfulness, without being characterised as hostile."

Cockroft v. Smith

Court: Court

Year:

Principle(s): First, revenge does not amount to self-defence. Secondly, the force used in self-defence must be proportionate and reasonable.

Hegarty v. Shine

Court: Court

Year: 1878

Principle(s): Consent as a defense to an action for trespass to the person.

Mouse’s case

Court: Court

Year: 1608

Principle(s): Principle of necessity as a defence to trespass