Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey! Sign in to get help with your study questionsNew here? Join for free to post

Slightly confused - Tort - injury caused by claimant himself?

Announcements Posted on
Become part of the Welcome Squad! Apply here! 28-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I am confused by a problem:

    A runs into a bank, as a joke, and orders every to get to the floor as 'this is a bank raid' and he is brandishing a toy gun. B didn't see the gun, but was scared for his life so he threw himself to the floor and fractured his knee.

    What area of tort law governs this situation? Is it Wilkinson v Downton?
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Dude - it's assault.
    • Thread Starter
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Dude - it's assault.
    It's assault? So he apprehends the imminent application of force, so he throws himself to the floor? So you would say assault but reduce damages for contributory negligence? Also, maybe we can apply Protection From Harrassment Act 1997 for these practical jokes?

    Thanks, and sorry I am very bad at tort law, but strangely find things like land and trusts quite easy...

    EDIT : OH I get it now. It's an assault; but you use Stephens v Meyers to say that in order for the assault to be made out, the defendant must have actually had the means of carrying out the apprehended threat. Here, they only had water pistols, so no means of carrying it out. But B didn't see the water pistols...
    • 37 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suffocation1992)
    It's assault? So he apprehends the imminent application of force, so he throws himself to the floor? So you would say assault but reduce damages for contributory negligence?

    Thanks, and sorry I am very bad at tort law, but strangely find things like land and trusts quite easy...
    Well - I'd def say it's assault. The injury can be battery if you can make out the facts. From Scott v Shepherd in the 1700s, it was clear that you don't have to actually harm someone yourself. D threw a firework into a marketplace, and various people threw it from one to another until it hit someone in the face and blew up. D was liable.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not that it requires it, but just to add, Scott v Shepherd also established that actions in the heat of the moment don't break the chain of causation, and throwing yourself to the floor in such a way is definitely a 'heat of the moment' decision.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 8, 2012
New on TSR

Halloween 2014

Join the TSR Halloween party...if you dare!

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.