Rights and Liabilities Of Parties In Tort - Case Study Example

Rights and Liabilities Of Parties In Tort Rights and Liabilities of Paul Technically, there are three acts that should be considered in this case namely (a) the act of moving towards Mick in a menacing manner while shouting obscenities, (b) the act of striking Mick in the head using the bottle of vodka and (c) the act of carrying Mick to a garden shed and locking him in. In the first act, Paul can be held liable for intentional tort in this case. Note that there are four subcategories of intentional tort namely (a) assault (b) battery (c) intentional infliction of emotional stress and (d) fraud. Of the four subcategories, the first act of Paul falls under assault. According to the court in the case of R v. Gladstone Williams1, assault can only be committed when there is a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact with another individual. The fact that Paul was not able to cross the street and directly confront Mick does not excuse him from this liability. The ruling of the court in the case of DPP v. Little2 clearly states that there is no need for actual bodily contact for assault to happen. The expressed intentions of the accused, his or her ability to carry out the threat and the resulting apprehension on the part of the victim in connection with the threat is enough to give rise to a tortuous act of assault. In our case, the fact that Paul is drunk and is prone to violent behavior give rise to the presumption that he is capable of harming Mick had he been able to cross the street. Given this situation, his threatening act should not be taken lightly. Although the facts of our case did not specifically stated that Mick felt threatened or distressed by the act of Paul, the act of Mick of coming back to the scene of the incident with a toy gun is already a clear manifestation that he was affected by the menacing stance of Paul earlier. Since Mick may have suffered from distress due to the threatening act of Paul, the liability for tort arises. When it comes to the right of Paul, he is entitled to use legal defense. In defending himself against the possible liability for assault, Paul can invoke the defense presented in the case of Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner3. In deciding the aforementioned case, the Court said that where an act constitutes an affront to the dignity of a reasonable person, that person cannot be help liable for assault if he reacted in a menacing manner provided that he or she did not commit any physical harm on the other person. In our case, Mick’s insulting words provoked Paul into assuming a menacing attitude. Paul’s reaction in this case is only normal and since he was not able to do any physical harm against Mick, he may not be held liable for assault. Moreover, according to the decision of this case, a person cannot be held liable for assault if his or her reaction does not purport and imminent threat of violence. Since Paul and Mick were standing in the opposite sides of a busy street, there was really no immediate danger of violence in this case. Note that Paul was not able to cross the street due to heavy traffic and even if he did try to cross the street, Mick still has ample time to flee from the scene and avoid any violent incidents. As it is, there can be no immediate danger of harm in this case. With regards to the second act where Paul hit Mick in the head using the bottle of vodka, Paul can be held liable for battery under Sections 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 so provides that “whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm upon any other person either with or without any weapon or instrument shall be guilty of misdemeanor…” while section 47 states that “Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude…” Technically, the offense of battery in tort intentionally and voluntarily brings about harm or offensive contract with another person or with objects or things that are closely associated to that person. In Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc.4, the court said that there is no need for body contact in order for battery in tort to occur. According to the court in the case of Wilson v. Pringle5, the unlawful act of touching the personal things of another person constitute another form of trespass to person. On the other hand, in the case of R v. Notman6, the court said that body contact may not be direct and it is enough that a person used an object to harm the person. An example states in this case is the throwing of stone on the victim. Going back to the case of Paul, Paul used a bottle to hit Mick in the head, causing bodily harm. The harm suffered by Mick in this case constitutes battery and Paul must be charged accordingly. With regards to the third act, Paul can be held liable for assault and battery. According to the court in the case of R v Smith (Thomas Joseph)7, where there is no break in the causation, the series of events should be considered in relation with each other. In our case, after Paul hit Mick with the bottle of vodka, he immediately carried the unconscious man to a garden shed and locked him in. Technically, these series of actions should be considered as one continuing act. There is no need to establish that the fact that the act of Paul is reckless in this case. According to the decision of the case of R v Mowatt8, to establish liability, it is sufficient that the accused intended his act to be reckless so as to cause harm to another (see also R v Parmenter9; and R v Savage10). Moreover, in the case of H v Director of Public Prosecutions11, the court said that is assault that resulted to bodily harm, it is not necessary for the prosecution to identify the particular injuries that have been cause during the incident. It is enough for the persecution to show the court that the victim suffered from bodily harm because of the acts of the accused. Aside from being held liable for bodily injuries, Paul may also be held liable for psychiatric injury that Mick may have suffered because of the incident. Note that the blow on the head of Mick may have resulted in psychiatric injury which is why he became violent when brought to the hospital for treatment. As stated by the court in the case of R v Constanza12, the accused may be held liable for both actual bodily harm psychiatric injury resulting from his act. However, before Paul can be held liable for psychiatric injury, Mick must show to the court that he is not prone to psychiatric illness or psychiatric reactions to stressful incidents (see Page v Smith13). As for the rights of Paul in this case, he has the right to invoke the defense of self-defense. The act of Mick in threatening Paul with a toy gun created a reasonable apprehension of an immediate danger on the part of Paul. Paul believed that the gun pointed at him was real so he tried to defend himself. According to the decision of the court in the case of R v. Fisher14, a person has the right to defend himself when he perceived himself to be in immediate danger. Aside from having the right to invoke self-defense, Paul also has the right to file a case of assault against Mick. Note that Mick’s act of pointing the toy gun at Paul created an apprehension of immediate danger (see R v. Gladstone Williams15). 2. Rights and Liabilities of Mick There are four occasions that Mick can be held liable for tort in this case namely (a) when he pointed a toy gun at Paul, (b) when he tried to punch Dr. George, (c) when he hit nurse Stella by mistake and (d) when he continually called Stella at work and waited outside the hospital in the hope of seeing her. In the first act, pointing a toy gun at Paul constitute assault. According to the case of R v. Gladstone Williams16, an act that creates reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact with another individual constitutes an assault. It doesn’t matter if the gun that was pointed at Paul was not real, the fact that he truly believed that the gun was real and that he is in real danger made him act the way he did. Clearly, there was a sufficient provocation on the part of Mick. If Mick had not come back and pointed a toy gun at Paul, Paul would not have been provoked to hit him with the bottle of vodka. However, the fact that there was sufficient provocation in the case does not negate the liability of Paul for assault and battery. As it is, Mick has the right to recovery damages from Paul for the injuries he suffered. According to the case of R v Constanza17, a person may be held liable fore the actual bodily harm he inflicted as well as any psychiatric injury other than fear, panic or distress. In our case, Mick became violent when he was brought to the hospital for treatment. His violent behavior may be a result of his ordeal in the hands of Paul. Note that after Paul rendered him unconscious with a blow in the head, Paul locked him inside a garden shed and the police have to break the door to get him out. The act of Mick in trying to punch Dr. George constitutes assault. Note that even if Dr. George was not hit nor was he harmed by the act of Mick, he still has the right to sue Mick of assault. Another case of assault may also be pinned against Mick when he hit Stella by mistake. According to the case of R v Savage18, where a person intend to harm a person but slipped and caused another person harm, such person may be held liable for tort under Section 47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861. With regards to Mick’s act of calling Stella and waiting for her outside of the hospital, Mick can be held liable for tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Stella is the primary victim in this case and the act of Mick may have caused her undue emotional stress and fear of her safety. In the case of Page v Smith19, the court ruled that a person may be held liable for damages if his or her acts caused undue emotional distress, nervous shock or psychiatric injury on another person. Moreover, in the case of Montgomery v. Murphy20, the court said that where the victim suffered emotional and mental distress resulting from fright, he or she may recover damages from the perpetrator of the act. 3. Rights and Liabilities of Dr. George Dr. George has the right to sue Mick for assault. Mick’s act of punching Dr. George is an unlawful act which may bring harm or offensive contact. The fact that Mick was sick at that time and may not be able to really inflict a lot of harm on Dr. George is of no consequence in this case. Note that in the case of DPP v. Little21, there is no need to actual physical contact to happen before one can be held liable for assault. Given this situation, the fact that Mick failed to hit Dr. George does not excuse him from liability. Can Dr. George be held liable for assault by touching Mick? No, Dr. George cannot be held liable for assault even if touched Mick without his express permission. According to the court in the case of Sidaway v. Bethlehem Royal Hospital Governors22, in keeping with the nature of the work of medical professionals, doctors may not be held liable for assault if they touch their patient in accordance with regular clinical practice. In our case, Dr. George touched Mick to treat his wound and such act on the part of the doctor cannot be considered as an assault. 4. Rights of Stella There are two instances in this case where Stella may be able to recover damages from Mick namely (a) when Mick hit her by mistake and (b) when Mick continuously called her at work and waited outside the hospital to see her. As decided by the court in the case of R v Savage23, a third person who is injured by mistake during an incident may recover damages against the perpetrator of the act for bodily harm he or she suffered. In defining bodily harm, the court, in the case of R v Donovan24 said that bodily harm “includes any hurt or injury calculated to interfere with the health or comfort” of the victim. The injury suffered by the victim need not be permanent in nature but it must not also be “merely transient and trifling.” In other words, the injury must be such that it will make the victim uncomfortable. Clearly, even if the punch that landed on Stella was not so forceful as to cause permanent damage, if Stella ended up with bruises or wounds during the incident, she can sue Mick for damages. Note that for the victim to recover damages due to physical impact the following criteria must be meet (a) the existence of an unlawful act (b) the unlawful act may or may not be directly intended for the victim and (c) the victim suffered harm from the unlawful act. In our case, the unlawful act was the punch and the resulting injury happened when the punch landed on Stella. With regards to Mick’s act of continually calling on her, Stella can sue Mick for intentional infliction of emotional stress. According to the English court in the case of Dulieu v White & Sons25, the victim may be able to recover damages for emotional harm even if there was no physical impact involved in the case. To be able to recover damages, the victim must only prove that (a) the accused acted intentionally or recklessly, (b) that the conduct of the accused was outrageous and extreme, (c) that the act of the accused cause the victim distress and (d) that the victim suffered from emotional distress due to the acts of the accused. To recover damages based on emotional distress the victim must prove to the court that the act of the accused is not random. The acts of the accused can be considered as extreme and outrageous if the following criteria are present (a) the incident was not isolated and the conduct of the accused followed and pattern (b) that the accused is aware that the victim is vulnerable and (c) the accused was in the position to harass the victim (see Taylor v. Metzger26). In our case, Mick repeatedly called on Stella against her will. The repeated acts of Mick may have some several emotional impacts in Stella especially when she has already suffered some previous physical injuries in the hands of Mick. Moreover, the fact that Mick has a history of violent behavior can also aggravate the feelings of fear in this case. As it is, Stella may sue Mick for damages for intentionally inflicting emotional distress. Bibliography Books and laws 1. Horsey, K & Rackley,E. (2009) Tort Law Oxford University Press, Oxford 1st ed 2. Lunny M., Oliphant K. (2008) Tort Law: Text and materials, Oxford University Press 3. Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Table of Cases 1. DPP v. Little [1992] 1 All ER 299 2. Dulieu v White & Sons (1901) 2 KB 669 3. Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439 4. Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (1967) 5. H v Director of Public Prosecutions (2007) EWHC 960 (Admin) (16 March 2007) 6. Montgomery v. Murphy (1982) 136 DLR (3d) 525 7. Page v Smith [1995] 2 All ER 736 8. R v Constanza (1997) EWCA Crim 633 (6the March, 1997) 9. R v Constanza (1997) EWCA Crim 633 (6the March, 1997) 10. R v Donovan 25 Cr. App. Rep. 1, CCA 11. R v Mowatt [1967] 3 All ER 47 12. R v Savage (1992) UKHL 1 (07 November 1991) 13. R v Savage (1992) UKHL 1 November 1991 14. R v Smith (Thomas Joseph) [1959] 2 QB 35, [1959] A.C. 15. R v. Fisher [1987] Crim LR 334 16. R v. Gladstone Williams [1987] 3 All ER 411 17. R v. Notman [1994] Crim LR 518 18. Sidaway v. Bethlehem Royal Hospital Governors [1984] 1 All ER 1018 19. Taylor v. Metzger, (1998) 706 A.2d 685 N.J. 20. v Parmenter (1991) 4 All ER 698 21. Wilson v. Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440 Read More