Whilst injury is generally not a prerequisite, the courts will distinguish between hostile and unhostile contact. Livingstone v Ministry of Defence/Gibbon v Pepper. Hostility? Definitions of The Tort of Assault. however, her son was touched and he therefore had a claim (iii) Unlawful Contact: Even though he had not intended to hit the claimant, it was held that because he had intended to fire the baton round in the first place, he was liable. Gibbon v Pepper - , if Mike pushes Lucy into Dave - Battery. The Ministry of Defence (Zambia Army) (hereinafter referred to as “Contracting Authority”) wish to be engaged in the development of mixed use real estate infrastructure development and as part of this endeavour, the Contracting Authority wish to undertake development of various projects located in Lusaka and Livingstone. THE TORT OF ASSAULT. Wide definition - applies across the three torts. However, in 2004 an English Court in Bici v Ministry of Defence announced its commitment to the doctrine. 1 Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984] 2 It was held that the chain of causation wasn’t broken because the intermediate people acted instinctively and foreseeably. The Ministry of Defence has admitted primary liability for Mr Badger's widow's claim: it did so when the claim was intimated on 21 February 2003. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Posted on March 24, 2016 Written By Olanrewaju Olamide. The claim was in negligence and assault and battery. This can be seen in Livingstone v Ministry of Defence [1984] NI 356. to fall and break his leg. Livingstone v Ministry of Defence The claimant successfully sued for battery after being hit by a bullet that was aimed at someone else. Williams v Humphrey The trial judge . . (school friends), causing Cl. Moreover, the Court claimed to base this commitment on the implicit recognition of the doctrine in three other cases: Livingstone v Ministry of Defence, James v Campbell, and Ball v Axten. As per Cole v Turner [1704] 6 Mod Rep 149, the “least touching in anger is a battery.” There can be inferred intent if they intend to fire at someone, for example, and end up firing at someone else. The courts have considered an extra element, “hostility”, to distinguish unacceptable physical contact and acts part of everyday life. In Livingstone v Ministry of Defence, the defendant, a soldier, had intended to shoot someone with a baton round, which went wide and hit the claimant. Intention satisfied. D jumped on Cl. Direct. Cited – Livingstone v Ministry of Defence CANI ([1984] NILR 356) The plaintiff was injured when a soldier fired a baton round after some soldiers were attacked by rioters. Posted in The Law Of Torts Tagged Collins vs Wilcock, Gibbons vs Pepper, Livingstone vs Ministry of defence, Marube vs Nyamuro, Pursell vs Horn, Scott vs Shepherd 9 Comments. Wilson v Pringle However, the Ministry of Defence contends that Mrs Badger's claim falls to be reduced on account of Mr Badger's contributory negligence. Dodwell v Burford - can be indirect contact (hit rump of horse and the horse bolted) DPP v K (acid in hand drier) guards during the strip search, therefore she could not sue under battery. 4. The round had been deliberately fired, but not to strike the plaintiff. 356 followed. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Livingstone v Ministry of Defence (1984): D fired gun at another but Cl. Wilson v Pringle (1987): Was contact was made with hostility? (4) The doctrine of transferred malice applied to the tort of battery where a soldier deliberately fired against one person but hit another person instead because he had "intentionally" applied force to the person who was struck, Livingstone v Ministry of Defence (1984) N.I.L.R. Livingstone v Ministry of Defence - doctrine of transferred malice applies. was hit by the bullet.