A woman had an operation; the operation made her disease even worse.
She claimed that she had not been informed sufficiently about the risks of the operation.

Defences: DONNELY v. JACKSON (1970)

A police officer thought that a woman was soliciting.
He wanted her to stay, but she went away.
He took her arm, she scratched him.
First, the woman was sentenced, but she appealed.

He should have said that he wanted to arrest the woman.
For cops, compare: DONNELY v. JACKSON (1970)

Jackman was a police officer who suspected that Donnely had committed an offence.
Jackman tapped him on the shoulder and said, 'I want to talk to you'. Donnely said, 'Go away'.
Jackman tapped him again. Donnely turned away and hit him so that he fell on the pavement.

CON The least touching in anger is a battery - COLE v. TURNER (1704)
But this was part of his daily job.
For cops, compare COLLINS v. WILCOCK (1984)
For defences, compare LEIGH v. GLADSTONE (1909)

B shot A during a shooting party.
A claimed in trespass, alleging only the fact of the shooting, and leaving it to B to justify the conduct (as by proof that it was an accident).

Change in law: trespass to the person restricted to intentional acts (later so clarified) in LETANG v. COOPER (1965)

Leigh was imprisoned and went on hunger strike.
She was forcibly fed by warders.
She sued the prison staff for assault and battery.

Had the prison staff not fed the plaintiff she would have died.
For defences, compare: DONNELY v. JACKSON (1970)

In a car park, a car drove over the woman's legs.
The woman came to court 3 years after the accident (negligence: 3 years limitation period; trespass: 6 years).
Negligence or trespass to the person (battery)?

Lord Denning: where the damage is direct and intentional, it is a trespass, where it is unintentional and negligent, it is negligence.
Per-se torts favour the plaintiff, because they henceforth have not to show damages. 'He who brings the case has to show' (the plaintiff has to show now). FOWLER v. LANNING (1959) confirmed. Out: STAINLEY v. POWEL (1891)

Obiter: judges doubted if the decision of WILSON v PRINGLE (1986) was right.
If you say there has to be hostility you do not save people enough from being touched.
Judge Cardozo: you should not be touched by anyone if you do not consent.
Sport: are you injured in the rules of the game or are you injured because someone wants you to?

S had failed to establish that P had been negligent.
This overruled WEAVER v. WARD (1616)
Reversed again in FOWLER v. LANNING (1959); the latter confirmed in LETANG v. COOPER (1965)

A man made military exercises with loaded weapons.
P shot D, saying that it had happened entirely without his fault and intention.

For battery, D would have to show that it happened intentionally.
Extended to negligence in STAINLEY v. POWELL (1891) ; but again restricted in FOWLER v. LANNING (1959) and LETANG v. COOPER (1965)

A man (joking) told a woman that her husband had been badly injured and gave her strict instructions what to do.
She got a nervous shock.

He could have foreseen that somebody can be injured by this joke.
Therefore tort for intentional injury (kind of unclassified tort).
This rule was applied in KHORASANDJIAN v. BUSH (1993) (nuisance) and in JANVIER v. SWEENY (1919) (assault)

A boy went to school, having his bag over his shoulder.
Boys came and told him that it was not allowed to take the bag over the shoulder and hit him on the floor.

If you say there has to be hostility you do not save people enough from being touched if they do not want to be touched.
Ratio decidendi questioned in RE F (?) (1990)