Legal Problem Solving Assignment: Torts Law, Trespass and Defenses

This document is a comprehensive analysis of a Torts Law assignment, focusing on the concept of trespass. The assignment addresses two key questions, with the first question delving into the essential requisites of trespass to property under common law, differentiating between trespass to person, trespass to chattel, and trespass to land. It applies these principles to a case scenario involving threats, commotion, and battery, demonstrating how Philip's actions constitute trespass. The second question explores the fault elements of trespass to a person, as established in Letang v Cooper, and trespass to land, further analyzing Philip's actions in relation to these elements. The final question examines various defenses available to trespassers, such as Volunti Non Fit Injuria and self-defense, and how they apply to the given scenario, including the relevance of the Civil Liability Act. The document includes relevant case laws and legislation to support the analysis.

Running head: LAW OF TORTS
LAW OF TORTS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LAW OF TORTS
Question 1
Under the common law trespass is referred to as the intentional entry of a person objects
of such person into somebody else’s land, without the owner’s consent and also so without a
lawful excuse. The essential requisites of trespass to property under common law are:
 An unlawful interference or invasion into somebody else’s property,
 The interference or invasion is intentional from the trespassers end,
 Use of force is evident in such intervention or invasion, and
 Such an act has resulted to an injury to the owner of such property.
Trespass is however categorised as trespass to a person, trespass to chattel or goods and
trespass to land. Trespass to a person involves threat, assault, battery, wounding, commotion
and false imprisonment. At injury or damage must be shown in this type of trespass. While a
sign of injury is not important for a trespass to chattel; it's simply requires a person to invade
into somebody else’s goods and use it without consent. Trespass to land it is referred to the
unlawful interference or invasion into someone else's real property (land or building).
In the given case Philip had been threatening Rodney to hit him with his fist if he did not
agree to his quoted price of the car that he intends to buy from Rodney. While Rodney
decided not to answer back to Phillip’s threats. After couple of days Phillip came over to
Rodney’s place and started a commotion outside the house. This could be an instance of
interference or invasion into somebody else's property without the consent of the owner of
such land and also without a lawful purpose. The threat made by Philip to come over to
Rodney’s place and teaching him a lesson with his fist is evidence that he had the intention to
trespass into Rodney’s place. In addition, Philip had left a bag of dog poo behind the back
wheel of Rodney’s car to create an inconvenience for Rodney to enjoy his property shows an
evidence of trespass to land by Philip in this situation

2LAW OF TORTS
In addition, hitting Rodney’s father when he came out with his son to inspect the
commotion that Philip had started outside his house is another instance of trespass made by
Philip. Philip tried to punch Rodney but instead it was Rodney’s father who was injured in
the course of such brawl, thereby knocking Rodney’s father to the ground. This gives an
evidence that Philip had made use of force in order to trespass. The injuries sustained by
Rodney’s father satisfy the element of injury to the owner by the trespasser, thereby
confirming that Philip had made a trespass to person by committing Battery upon Rodney’s
father.
The explanation to prove Philips’s act of trespass to the person and trespass to land could
be satisfied by referring to the essential requisites of trespass which involves unlawful
interference or invasion into somebody else’s property as well as threats, commotion and
battery against a person with the intention to hurt the other person, and subsequently resulting
into an injury satisfies all the element of trespass to person and trespass to land.
Question 2
Trespass to the person
The fault elements of trespass to a person as held in the case of Letang v Cooper is1:
 Threat, commotion, assault, battery, wounding and false imprisonment to a person,
 With intention, and
 Causing injury to such aggrieved person.
In the given case, Philip had been threatening Rodney over emails that he would teach
him a lesson with his fist if rodney does not agree to his quoted price of the car that he
intends to buy from rodney. This is the first step or instance of a trespass to person. When
Philip came over to rodney’s house and started a commotion, it signifies another instance of
1 Letang v Cooper [1964] 2 All ER 292 (CA)

3LAW OF TORTS
trespass to person. Finally when Philip tried to punch Rodney and accidentally hit Rodney’s
father, it is the last instance of trespass to person which involves battery as well as and injury
caused to Rodney’s father.
Trespass to land
Trespass to land it is referred to the unlawful interference or invasion into someone
else's real property (land or building).
The fact that Phillip had started of commotion outside rodney's house gives a purview
that he had the intention to invade into rodney’s place, had Rodney or his father not come out
to see what was going on outside their house. The fact that Philip had left a bag of dog poo
behind the back wheel of Rodney’s car also give the picture that Philip intended to invade
into rodney’s property. Therefore the actions of Philip are satisfying the elements of the
trespass to land.
Question 3
There are several kinds of defences that are available to trespassers as well as to
people involved in a tort of trespass. As for trespass to a person, defences like Volunti Non
Fit Injuria or ‘voluntary assumption of risk’ as seen in the case of Watson v British boxing
board of control limited2, or in case of ‘self-defence’ as seen in Cockcroft v Smith3. In case of
trespass to land, a trespasser or a person involved in a case of trespass could defend himself
by proving that he had ‘license’ over such land, or could justify his act of trespass by law or
could cite a ‘lawful purpose’ for his trespass. Like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 of England and Wales authorises the police to enter into any land in case they have an
arrest warrant to arrest an offender. Lawful necessity is another defence that a trespasser
2 Watson v British boxing board of control limited [2000] EWCA Civ 2116
3 Cockcroft v Smith [1705] 2 Salk 642

4LAW OF TORTS
could cite to defend himself against trespass to land, however it is not enough of a defence in
case the defendant had an alternative to recourse his action.
In this case, rodney’s action does not constitute trespass against Philip for Section 52
of the Civil Liability Act would protect him for his actions of self defence against Philip’s
threat, commotion and physical hurt4.
4 Civil Liability Act 2002, s 52

5LAW OF TORTS
Bibliography
Case laws
Cockcroft v Smith [1705] 2 Salk 642
Letang v Cooper [1964] 2 All ER 292 (CA)
Watson v British boxing board of control limited [2000] EWCA Civ 2116
Legislation
Civil Liability Act 2002
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984