University Torts Law Assignment: Analyzing Intentional Torts

This assignment solution addresses key concepts in tort law, focusing on intentional torts such as assault, battery, and false imprisonment. It provides a detailed analysis of these torts, outlining the necessary elements for each and referencing relevant case law like Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd and Carter v Walker. The solution examines scenarios involving William Connolly, Senator Anning, and a young man, applying tort law principles to determine potential liabilities. Furthermore, it explores defenses available in tort law, including self-defense, necessity, and consent, supported by case examples such as State of NSW v McMaster and Hunter New England Area Health Service v A. The assignment concludes with a comprehensive bibliography of cited sources.

Running head: TORT LAW
TORT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1TORT LAW
Question 1
A tort is considered to be a civil wrong that causes harm to any other individual. Torts
comprise of an extensive range of actions. The legal arena in relation to torts is divided into
several subclasses. One among many ways through which torts are separated is with the help of
the mental state regarding the wrongdoer. When a particular individual has been intending to
execute a specific action, it shall be regarded as a deliberate or an intentional tort. There exists
several kinds regarding intentional torts. Each such intentional tort is considered to have its own
elements. The general intentional torts include false imprisonment, battery, assault, fraud,
invasion regarding privacy, defamation, conversion, trespass and intentional infliction of
emotional distress.
As per the Common Law, assault is considered to be an intentional tort where either
specific or general intent exists and causes the practical and rational apprehension in relation to
an instantaneous offensive, harmful, damaging, detrimental and injurious contact. There are three
rudiments that should be fulfilled for the establishment of a tortious assault. Firstly, there should
be a particular positive act that must be performed by defendant. Secondly, the plaintiff should
have rationally and sensibly apprehended an instantaneous physical contact. Thirdly, the act of
the defendant in relation to the interference was deliberate, premeditated and intentional.
As per the Common Law, battery is considered to be the tort regarding the negligently or
intentionally and voluntarily causing an offensive, injurious, harmful or detrimental contact in
relation to any individual, which was unconsented.

2TORT LAW
It may be said that false imprisonment arises or transpires when a particular individual
intentionally confines or limits the movement of any other individual within a specific area
without any kind of legal authority, consent or justification.
The case of Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 981 is considered to be a
relevant case in this regard. In this particular case, the plaintiff was a gambler who was excluded.
Nonetheless, the plaintiff illegally came back to the casino. The employees noticed this
individual and approached and escorted the individual to the ‘interview room’. It was essential
that the individual should remain in that room until the police reached afterwards. The plaintiff
filed a suit claiming damages for battery, assault and false imprisonment, and was unsuccessful.
The court stated that the employees performed their activities without having any intention
towards the plaintiff. It was held that no battery or assault or false imprisonment was committed
by the employees regarding the casino. Even in relation to the claim regarding false
imprisonment, it was held that as per the Casino Control Act of the year 1992, the detention of
the plaintiff was justified.
The case of Carter v Walker (2010) 32 VR 12 is considered to be an important case law in
this regard. In this case, it was mentioned that the basic and rudimentary requirement in relation
to battery is that the defendant should have anticipated or envisioned the consequence regarding
the contact in connection to the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the defendant should have the
knowledge that such contact may be unlawful.
The case of Croucher v Cachia (2016) 95 NSWLR 1173 is another significant case in this
regard. In this case, it was mentioned that any particular defendant, who gives effect to a
1 Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98.
2 Carter v Walker (2010) 32 VR 1.
3 Croucher v Cachia (2016) 95 NSWLR 117.

3TORT LAW
physical contact in relation to the plaintiff in a direct manner, shall be held to commit battery
unless it is proved by the defendant that there is no negligence and intent on the part of the
defendant, that is, there was no fault of the defendant.
William Connolly
Applying the rules stated above, it may be said that William Connolly committed the tort
of battery against Senator Anning when he cracked an egg on the head of the politician. Contact
was made by William Connolly and had an intention to do so.
Applying the rules in relation to tort mentioned above, it may be said that battery was
committed against William Connolly when Mr. Anning punched William after he cracked an egg
on Mr. Anning’s head. William Connolly was detained on the ground by the supporters of Mr.
Anning until the police arrived at the scene. Hence, it may also be said that William Connolly
was detained in a false imprisonment.
The Young Man
Applying the rules in relation to tort stated above, it may be said that assault had been
committed against the young man. As per the video, it may be said that the young man may have
apprehended an instantaneous harmful contact. The act of the individual fulfils the essentials of
assault. Firstly, there existed a particular positive act performed by defendant. Secondly, the
plaintiff rationally and sensibly apprehended an instantaneous physical contact. Thirdly, the act
of the defendant in relation to the interference was deliberate, premeditated and intentional4.
The young man did not commit any tort as the provided video.
4 Stickley, Amanda P. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016.

4TORT LAW
Question 2
It may be said that assault may be warranted in circumstances relating to self-defense. An
act of assault may also be justified where the situation demands the defense in relation to a third
party, where such action was believed to be sensible and rational. An assault may be warranted
in the connection to sport where the consent might be implied or given. An act relating to assault
might be considered to be privileged. It shall mean that the individual who performs the act
relating to assault, enjoyed the legal privilege or right to perform such action.
In case of battery, the standard defenses in relation to trespass regarding the individual,
namely consent, necessity, defense of others and self-defense are applied.
The case of State of NSW v McMaster [2015] NSWCA 2285 is considered to be a relevant
case in this regard. In this case, it was stated that self-defense shall be available in relation to the
civil context. The context regarding self-defense shall be available to the defendant if it is
believed by the defendant on rational and sensible grounds that the actions performed by the
defendant were absolutely necessary in order to provide protection, either to himself or to any
other individual.
The case of Morris v Nugent 7 Car. & P. 5726 shall be considered to be a relevant case in
this regard. In this case, the significance regarding the existence of any particular threat during
the time or moment when the defendant performs the act relating to private defense, has been
discussed. In this particular case, it was stated that the act of the defendant could not be held to
be justified because there was no existence of any actual threat or harm during the time when the
5 State of NSW v McMaster [2015] NSWCA 228.
6 Morris v Nugent 7 Car. & P. 572.

5TORT LAW
dog was shot by the defendant and hence no plea could be availed by the defendant in relation to
private defense.
The case of Surroco v Geary 3 Cal. 69 is regarded as a case where the defense of
‘necessity’ was utilized7. The defense relating to ‘necessity’ has been discussed in this case. The
court stated that the populace necessity defense is applicable as per the circumstances of the case
because the damage in relation to the city would have been disastrous and a lot worse if Geary
would have stopped himself from giving the order regarding the demolition of the house of
Surocco.
Another case relating to defense of ‘necessity’ may be said to be the case of Hunter New
England Area Health Service v A (2009) 74 NSWLR 888. In this case, it was stated that defenses
in relation to trespass in torts shall involve necessity, for instance, a situation of medical
emergency, where consent was not possible because the life of a patient was in immediate risk
and danger.
The case of Hart v Herron [1984]9 shall be considered to be a relevant case in this regard.
If it can be proved by the defendant that the plaintiff has consented to the actions performed by
the defendant and the actions that is under the question, then the plaintiff shall not be able to
succeed in relation to a claim regarding battery, or assault, or false imprisonment.
Hence, it may be said that the parties in the given scenario shall be able to utilize
defenses in the tort as per the rules mentioned above.
7 Surroco v Geary 3 Cal. 69.
8 Hunter New England Area Health Service v A (2009) 74 NSWLR 88.
9 Hart v Herron [1984].

6TORT LAW
For instance, applying the case of State of NSW v McMaster [2015] NSWCA 22810, it
may be said that the supporters of Mr. Anning may utilize the defense of ‘self-defense’ if it is
believed by them on rational and sensible grounds that the actions performed by them were
absolutely necessary in order to provide protection to Mr. Anning.
As per the case of Hunter New England Area Health Service v A (2009) 74 NSWLR 8811,
it may be said that the supporters of Mr. Anning did not have the opportunity to ask the consent
of William Connolly before apprehending him because of the belief of imminent danger.
William Connelly may also try to avail any one of the defenses available in relation to
battery or assault.
The individual arguing with the young man may also make an attempt to avail any one
particular defenses that are mentioned above in relation to assault.
10 State of NSW v McMaster [2015] NSWCA 228.
11 Hunter New England Area Health Service v A (2009) 74 NSWLR 88.

7TORT LAW
Bibliography
Carter v Walker (2010) 32 VR 1.
Croucher v Cachia (2016) 95 NSWLR 117.
Hart v Herron [1984].
Hunter New England Area Health Service v A (2009) 74 NSWLR 88.
Morris v Nugent 7 Car. & P. 572.
Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 98.
State of NSW v McMaster [2015] NSWCA 228.
Stickley, Amanda P. Australian torts law. LexisNexis Butterworths, 2016.
Surroco v Geary 3 Cal. 69.