Law of Torts Briefs

Bradford Corporation v. Pickles

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1895

Principle(s): Damnum Sine injuria: An action in tort cannot arise if there is no infringement of a legal right despite the existence of harm.

Letang v Cooper

Court: Court of Appeal

Year: 1965

Principle(s): An action for trespass to the person can only be brought for intentional torts.

Stephens v Myers

Court: High Court

Year: 1830

Principle(s): An action constitutes an assault if there is a means of carrying out the threat into effect, and not actually carrying out the threat

Tuberville v Savage

Court: Court

Year: 1669

Principle(s): Words accompanying an act can negate an assault; For an act to constitute an assault, there should be an intention to cause harm or injury.

Cole v Turner

Court: Court

Year: 1704

Principle(s): Touching another in anger constitutes battery; Or anger/aggression is necessary for a touch to constitute battery.

Innes v. Wylie

Court: Court

Year: 1844

Principle(s): An omission does not constitute a trespass. An action is required

Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers

Court: Court

Year: 1986

Principle(s): For an act to constitute assault, it must be possible to carry out physical violence

Read v Coker

Court: Court

Year: 1853

Principle(s): A conditional threat which causes a reasonable apprehension of harm would constitute an assault

R v St George

Court: Court

Year: 1840

Principle(s): An otherwise empty threat may constitute an assault if there is reasonable apprehension of harm.

Scott v Shepherd (Flying squib case)

Court: Kings Bench

Year: 1773

Principle(s): Direct act of the defendant as a constitutive element of battery

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc

Court: Court


Principle(s): Battery; A touch with any object to which the defendant is intimately attached constitutes physical touch of the plaintiff.

Collins v Wilcock

Court: Court

Year: 1984

Principle(s): To succeed in battery, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant touched them without lawful justification. A police officer without a lawful justification;

Davidson v. Chief Constable of North Wales

Court: Court

Year: 1994


Herd v Weardale Steel Coal & Coke Co Ltd

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1915

Principle(s): If the defendant fails to facilitate the exit of the plaintiff in another way than earlier contemplated by the plaintiff and defendant, the defendant is not liable for false imprisonment.

Bird v Jones

Court: Queen's Bench

Year: 1845

Principle(s): For false imprisonment, there must be a total restraint on the plaintiff. If the plaintiff has a reasonable means of escaping, there shall be no false imprisonment.

Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd

Court: Court


Principle(s): When a person enters an agreement that stipulates the terms of entry or exit from a premises (the wharf in this instance), it does not amount to false imprisonment if he is prevented from exiting the premises contrary to the terms of the agreement.

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1990

Principle(s): Per Lord Bridge, the following questions ought to be asked to determine if a duty of care exists: 1. Whether the damage caused to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. 2. Whether the parties are in a relationship of proximity. 3. Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant.

Donoghue v Stevenson

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1932

Principle(s): A duty of care is owed to persons who are in close proximity to be affected by our acts.

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1970

Principle(s): Duty of care: neighbor principle, reasonable foreseeability of harm.

Anns v Merton London Borough Council

Court: House of Lords

Year: 1978

Principle(s): Anns two stage for duty of care.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills

Court: Privy Council

Year: 1936


Halley v London Electrical Board

Court: Court

Year: 1965

Principle(s): Duty of care: reasonable foreseeability of harm.

Haynes v Harwood

Court: Court

Year: 1935

Principle(s): Duty of care owed to rescuer

Cutler v United Diaries

Court: High Court (KB)

Year: 1933

Principle(s): Voluntary assumption of risk, no duty of care; If the acts of the defendant no longer pose a danger to others, a person attempting to get rid of the dangerous situation is not owed a duty of care

Baker v T.E Hopkins

Court: Court of Appeal


Principle(s): Duty of care owed to third party rescuers.

Chadwick v British Railways Board

Court: Court

Year: 1987

Principle(s): Duty of care owed to rescuer

DR. E.L.A. Chinbuah, Captain J.K. Nyamekye v. The Attorney General

Court: High Court

Year: 2016

Principle(s): Vicarious liability; basis of liability in tort; medical negligence.