The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Can assault lead to indirect battery?

For example: A commits possible assault on B in a supermarket, which leads B to become frightened and run out of the supermarket. On their way, B knocks into C.

Can A be liable for indirect battery (DPP v Haystead), even though he has not committed a battery himself?

How would you solve something like this?
Original post by LLBSurrey
For example: A commits possible assault on B in a supermarket, which leads B to become frightened and run out of the supermarket. On their way, B knocks into C.

Can A be liable for indirect battery (DPP v Haystead), even though he has not committed a battery himself?

How would you solve something like this?


It's been a couple of years since I did Tort or Criminal law l but let me try to refresh my memory.

Start with causation so it will be: But for the actions of A, would C have stayed unhurt? Since the answer is "yes" we have an established chain and it will be "causation in fact".

For indirect battery use the case of R v Martin, which is quite similar to the one you just mentioned. There can be battery without lack of intent if there is negligence or another unlawful act was committed. The Mens Rea in this case will be recklessness.
Reply 2
Avatar for NHM
NHM
11
AQA would never give such a scenario.
Reply 3
Avatar for agaata5
agaata5
3
You should say whether it's relating to criminal or tort law.

If tort...
Look at transferred intent (James v Campbell) and intent by omission (Fagan v MPC). Trespass has nothing to do with negligence; the force must be applied directly and intentionally (Letang v Cooper - ''the plaintiff must also allege that he did it intentionally or negligently. If intentional, it is assault and battery. If negligent and causing damage, it is negligence''. ‘’the plaintiff must also allege that he did it intentionally or negligently. If intentional, it is assault and battery. If negligent and causing damage, it is negligence’’). You should also look at Collins v Wilcock, where Goff J expressed that the law should exclude liability generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of life (it could possibly be the case; it doesn't say that C has suffered any injuries, etc).
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you