LAWS1003A Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: False Imprisonment, Shoplifting
2 Jul 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Torts Week 2 Seminar- Intentional Interference with the Person. (TRESPASS)
Onus- who needs to prove what
Burden- how well they have to prove.
Torts has primarily developed from the writ of trespass and the writ of trespass on the case. It
emerged at the end of the 12th century as the form of action to cater for those wrongs which even
the most rudimentary legal system must deal with if the peace is to be kept: direct and forcible
interference with the person, lands or goods of another. For example, a kidnapper, burglar or thief
can be liable to be sued in trespass by their victims.
The interference with the plaintiff’s person, goods or land must be direct. It must be part of the
defendant’s act and not a consequence of it.
Proof of loss or damage is surprisingly not required for an action of trespass, different from most
other torts. This characteristic demonstrates the paramount value of the interests it protects, the
victim can be vindicated by a judgement against the trespasser, even if only nominal damages are
rewarded. This makes actionable an unauthorised physical contact which is not harmful but
offensive- see Fogg v McKnight [1968] NZLR 330, where the defendant touched the plaintiff while
mistakenly accusing him of shoplifting. Damages can be awarded to denounce the defendant’s
violation of the plaintiff’s rights, even though no substantial injury was incurred.
For the onus of proof, the plaintiff only has to proof a direct interference with the person, land or
goods. The defendant must prove any defence by way of justification, authorisation or excuse.
Trespass to the person
Battery, assault and false imprisonment.
Tort of battery is committed by directly and intentionally bringing about a harmful or offensive
contact with another.
- Reasonable: what a reasonable person would think.
Tort of Assault is committed by intentionally creating in another person an apprehension of
imminent harmful or offensive conduct.
Zanker v Vartzokas (1988).
Young woman accepted lift from defendant, they both got into car and he sped off
from the proposed route, he offered her money for sexual favours to which she
declined. He refused to let her out when asked and claimed he was “taking her to his
mates” as he would surely sort her out. She threatened to jump out of the van and
he still didn’t stop, so she jumped out of the moving van. The defendant said that
assault was a wrongful charge, but the magistrate found that his actions induced in
her mind apprehension of injury later on.
Tort of false imprisonment often only include asylum seekers v government, but can also be
incorporated for those who were held hostage etc.
Vicariously liable- the big company is liable not the individual.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Torts week 2 seminar- intentional interference with the person. (trespass) Torts has primarily developed from the writ of trespass and the writ of trespass on the case. For example, a kidnapper, burglar or thief can be liable to be sued in trespass by their victims. The interference with the plaintiff"s person, goods or land must be direct. It must be part of the defendant"s act and not a consequence of it. Proof of loss or damage is surprisingly not required for an action of trespass, different from most other torts. This characteristic demonstrates the paramount value of the interests it protects, the victim can be vindicated by a judgement against the trespasser, even if only nominal damages are rewarded. This makes actionable an unauthorised physical contact which is not harmful but offensive- see fogg v mcknight [1968] nzlr 330, where the defendant touched the plaintiff while mistakenly accusing him of shoplifting.
