Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    AQA would never give such a scenario.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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