1.

INTENTIONAL TORTS – TRESPASS TO THE PERSON

__________________________________________________________________________

1. Balkin and Davis Test; –

Test; directness is made out if the contact with plaintiff follows immediately after the
defendant’s act; it is not made out if there is some obvious and visible intervening cause.
Walkng and tripping over log; no directness
__________________________________________________________________________
_________

2. Scott v Shepherd (1773, ?) Directness- Acts done in self preservation aren’t voluntary
act and therefore don’t count as intervening actions at all.

- Facts; D threw a lighted squib into a crowded market. 1st store owner picked in up an
threw it into another store, and 2nd owner also threw it away and it struck V face and
burst putting out his eye.

- Issue: Whether there was a direct connection between the action of D and contact
with P body?

- Held: D directly inflicted the P injury

o Self preservation; Directness made out b/c 1st and 2nd store owner’s actions
were actions of self preservation. Therefore we ignore their actions and all we are
left with is D actions.
o Inevitable chain of consequences; If actions set off an inevitable chain of
consequences; direct cause.

__________________________________________________________________________
_________

1. Hutchins v Maughan (1947 VLR); Directness

- Fact: V was droving a flow of owes. D warned him that he had laid poisoned baits on
land in the vicinity. V thought D was bluffing and he brought his sheep and his two
dogs on to the land. The dogs ate the baits and died. V issues a complaint and
awarded damages for loss of dog. D obtained an order nisi to review the decision of
the mag.

- Issue: Whether D act of laying the bait was a direct cause or merely consequential?

- Held: D act was not a direct cause but merely consequential. Therefore not found
guilty for trespass

oDeath of the dogs didn’t result directly from D placing the meat on his land
b/c the P dog would never have been harmed if the plaintiff didn’t bring the
dog onto D land. That is a voluntary action which prevent directness being
made out. Bringing the dogs on the land was the intervening act.
o Compared. If the D threw poisen meat directly to the dogs and dogs ate it-
there crt said directness would have been made out.
o Infer- Actions of dogs don’t count for intervening act for these purposes.
Further suggests looking a human actions.
____________________________________________________________________

4. Southport Corporations v Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd (1954 QB) Directness- Doesn’t
include thing out of D control
 - Facts;. Oil had been discharged from a tanker stranded in an estuary and carried by
the tide on to the P foreshore.

- Issue: Whether directness was made out or not?

- Held: No directness.

o Oil was not discharged directly onto P foreshore, but was carried by the tide, the
interference was consequential.

In exam state;
Law on the directness is unclear.
Explain why it is unclear; unclear as to what is considered intervening?
How it should be resolved on the facts that it is given in the exam
Rem not right answer…just want a well argument to deal with an unclear area of law

.
__________________________________________________________________________
________

4. Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001 NSWCA) Battery- Contact

- Facts;. D (employee of casino) approached P (excluded person from the casino) who
was in the casino, and required him to go to the interview room and detained until
police arrive. P appealed unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and assault and battery.

- Issue: Whether D touching of P shoulder was sufficient to be considered battery or

assault?

- Held: D touching of the shoulder was not sufficient to be considered battery or

assault

o Touching; Lacked the requisite anger or hostile attitude and D touching of P

shoulder for the purpose of engaging P’s attention, was acceptable in the
ordinary conduct of daily life.
o Not assault; Action of D employee lacked the requiste intention to create in P
an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

__________________________________________________________________________
_________

5. Rozsa v Samuels (1969, SASR) Conditional threats can be assaults

- Facts;. Taxi driver A (Defendent) waiting at the front of the cue. Taxi driver B
(Appellent) decides to push in. A said that he would punch the appellant in the head.
B (appellent) reached under the dashboard of his taxi, and produced a knife saying ‘ I
will cut you to bits if you try it. Appellent convicted of assault and appealed.

- Issue: Whether appellants actions constituted an assault?

Whether or not there was an assault is to ask, if A had attempted to strike the
appellent in the manner which he threatened, would B (appellent) have been
justified in defending himself by using the table knife?

- Held: Appellents actions in threatening B with the knife, even though the threat was
accompanied by words of conditional threat, constituted an assault.
 o D threats went ‘beyong the ordinary bounds of self defence’; Appellent
could have clearly avoided the force threatened against him if he had
consented to move his taxi from the place which he had usurped at the head
of the queue and if, instead of trying to get out of the taxi, he himself had
closed the door and locked it, or if he had moved to the near side of the front
seat to be out of reach of any force which A might have used against him

5. Rozsa v Samuels (1969, SASR) Conditional threats can be assaults

- Facts;. Taxi driver A (Defendent) waiting at the front of the cue. Taxi driver B
(Appellent) decides to push in. a said that he would punch the appellant in the head.
B (appellent) reached under the dashboard of his taxi, and produced a knife saying ‘ I
will cut you to bits if you try it. Appellent convicted of assault and appealed.

- Issue: Whether appellants actions constituted an assault?

Whether on not there was an assault is to ask, if A had attempted to strike the
appellent
in the manner which he threatened, would B (appellent) have been justified in
defending
himself by using the table knife?

- Held: Appellents actions in threatening B with the knife, even though the threat was
accompanied by words of conditional threat, constituted an assault.

o D threats went ‘beyond the ordinary bounds of self defence’; Appellent

could have clearly avoided the force threatened against him if he had
consented to move his taxi from the place which he had usurped at the head
of the queue and if, instead of trying to get out of the taxi, he himself had
closed the door and locked it, or if he had moved to the near side of the front
seat to be out of reach of any force which A might have used against him

6. Tuberville v savage (1669 UK) Effect of words- conditional threats

- Facts;. D put hand on his sword and said to V, “were it not assize time, I
would not take such language from you

- Issue: Whether assault committed?

- Held: D not guilty of assault – words indicated that despite making his
gesture, D did not actually intend to use force on V – could not have created
apprehension of harm.

__________________________________________________________________________

7. Zanker v Vartzokas (1988, SCSA) imminence

– facts: V accepted lift with D – D offered V money for sex, which she refused –
D refused to let her out of the car, told her that he was taking her to his mate’s
house and that “he will really fix you up” – V leapt from the car and sustained
injuries
 - held: D guilty of assault – created an ‘immediate’ fear in V’s mind, which was
kept “in the continuing present” by D’s refusal to let her out of the car and
continuing to drive to his mate’s house.

8. Barton v Armstrong (1969) mere words

- Facts;. Plaintiff pleaded that the D, rang and threatened him with serious violence.
He feared the threat and alleged that it was an assault.

- Issue: Did D actions (calling and threatening over the phone) constitute an assault?

- Held: D actions constituted an assault

o The threats over the phone: in such circumstance are not ‘properly
categorised as mere words’. Much depended on the circumstances. Threats
over the phone could put a person in fear of later physical violence and that
this can constitute an assault although the victim does not know exactly or
even approximately when that physical violence may be applied.

__________________________________________________________________________

9. Brady c Schatzel (1911, SR)

- Facts;.
- Issue:

- Held: