Intentional Torts

(Trespass to the Person)

Presented By: Vipin Jain

Division :B
ROLL NO. :57
WHAT IS Intentional Torts?

 Intentional torts are intentional actions that result in

harm to the plaintiff. The harm need not be intended,
but the act must be intentional, not merely careless or
reckless.

 Trespass to Person-Trespass to the person involves the

wrongful invasion of a persons’ right to freedom from
interference with his body or his right to personal
liberty. This is in contrast to trespass to land that
involves the wrongful invasion of another’s premises.
3 Types of Trespass To Person
In modern times, trespass to the person has been replaced
by the three (3) separate torts of:
1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment
 1. BATTERY
 The wrong of battery consist of intentional application of force to another person
without any lawful justification.

Essentials of Battery are-

 1.There should be use of force
 2.The same should be, without any lawful justification.
 Use Of Force
 Even though force used is very trivial and dose not cause any harm, the wrong is
still constituted. Physical hurt need not be there .It was held in Cole v/s Turner
that Least touching of another in anger is a battery

 Example of Use Of Forces-

 Use of a stick, bullet or throwing of water or spitting in a man’s face or making a
person fall by pulling his chair
 Infliction of heat, light, electricity, gas, odour etc would be battery if it can result in
physical injury or personal discomfort
 Without A Lawful Justification
 It is essential that the use of force should be intentional and without any
lawful justification . Harm voluntarily suffered is no battery .

 In P.Kader v/s K.A. Alagarswami the Madras high court held that putting
handcuffs on an under trial prisoner and then chaining him like a dangerous
animal in a hospital during his medical treatment is an unjustifiable use of
force and the police officer responsible for the same is liable for trespass to
the person.
 The use of force may also be justified in forcibly feeding a hunger-striking
prisoner to save his life in Leigh v/s Gladstone
 2. ASSAULT

Assault is an act of defendant which causes to the plaintiff reasonable apprehension

of the infliction of a battery on him by the defendant . When defendant by his acts
creates an apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that he is going to commit battery
against the plaintiff , the wrong of assault is completed . For instance pointed a loaded
gun at another is an assault .

Generally assault precedes battery . For eg showing a clenched fist is assault but
actual striking amounts to battery.
In Hopper V/s Reeve throwing of water on an person is an assault but as soon as the

water falls on him, it becomes battery

 3. False Imprisonment
 This is the wrongful or unreasonable restraint of an individual’s liberty
[without lawful justification]. There is NO need to show damages. For
example, police officers may arrest or detain individual without legal
justification.
 To constitute this wrong ,imprisonment in the ordinary sense is not
required . When a person is deprived of his personal liberty, whether by
being confined within the four walls or by preventing from leaving the
place where he is , it is a false imprisonment.
TWO Essentials of False Imprisonment –

 1. THERE SHOULD BE TOTAL RESTRAINT ON LIBERTY OF PERSON-

 It can be both total and partial
 Total Restraint means when person is prevented from going out of certain
circumscribed limits, the offence is that of ‘wrongful confinement’ as defined in sec
340IPC .
 In Mee v/s Cruikshank after his acquittal a prisoner was taken down to the cells and
detained there for a few minutes while some questions were put to him by the
warders, there was hheld to be false imprisonment.
 Partial restraint is when a person is prevented merely from going to a particular
direction where he has a right to go, it is wrongful restraint according to sec 399IPC
2. IT SHOULD BE WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION

 Inorder to constitute the wrong of false imprisonment , it is necessary that

the restraint should be Unlawful or without any justification.

 Unlawful Detention –

In Bhim Singh v/s State of J&K the detention was unjustified . In this case the
petitioner , an MLA of the J&K Assembly was wrongfully detained by the police in
order to prevent him from attending the assembly session . The act of arrest was
considered to be mischievous and malicious and the Supreme Court granted
exemplary damages amounting to Rs 50,000 /-.