Tort Law - Trespass to the Person

onset to the Person History The kinglike Writ of horn in had two testicle requirements: 1) That the defendant acted vi et armis translated as with top executive and arms 2) That the defendant acted contra pacem translated as against the Kings Peace. In order to lie with the benefit of a running play in the Royal coquette (a better mode of discharge and procedure), allegeants would often claim that the second requirement had been fulfilled charge where it had non as a mater of course. This meant that when the claim came to court and the court could see that it had non, the courts would consume to decide the merits of the claim on the case. This led to a in the raw form of action obtrude on the case which did not require the strict requirements of the judicial writ of trespass. Trespass on the case however, was not actionable per se and required demonstration of damage flowing from the interference with the plaintiff. knowledgeable/ careless + work out = Writ of Trespass (actionable per se) Unintentional/ thoughtless + Non Direct = On the case (requires proof of damage) Unintentional + Non Negligent = A prayer of Inevitable Accident as a defence Trespass distinguished from Negligence Trespass is a STRICT responsibility tort. The C has to prove that the D intended to ACT. The C does not have to prove that the D intended to harm I.e. it is gap BASED. It is necessary for the C to show that the act was either knowledgeable or NEGLIGENT I.e.

to distinguish between which head of covenant they wish to sue under: Fowler v Lanning 1959 1 QB 426 | coquet ! | | |Facts |In a writ (now a claim form) the C claimed damages for trespass to the person. In his arguing of claim (now contention of case) he alleged that on | | |the 19th November 1957 at Corfe fastness the D shot the P. Due to this the P...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper