Fred v Ivan- Battery
Battery is committed when there is an intentional, direct, and unlawful contact or without consent to another’s person. Ivan intentionally made unlawful contact with Fred when he thrust his hands into Fred’s pocket. It was apparent that although the contact was with his pants’ pocket rather than directly to the body, the contact did involve some element of forces and that ‘the least touching of another in anger is battery’. Hence, the element of intent and direct impact are satisfied. Furthermore, Ivan’s contact was plainly beyond “permitted” contacts, and against the will of Fred. Notwithstanding that Fred may have provoked Ivan by his behaviour towards Ivan’s fiancée, however, this is not a defence to intentional wrong doing tort and there is not any reasonable ground for defence of the person of another. Therefore, it would be found that Ivan is liable for battery. There was no actual damage suffered by Fred, hence Fred can only claim for nominal damages.
Ivan v the parking attendant – negligent trespass for battery
A negligent battery is committed when there is a negligent, direct, and unlawful contact or without consent to another’s person. Prima facie, the injury suffered by Ivan was a direct injury negligently conflicted through the carelessness and negligence of the parking attendant. It would be reasonably foreseeable that someone might be standing under the shutter door. However, there has not been any precedent to support the view of negligent battery, or the interrelationship of fault and trespass. In my view, as long as the elements of negligent trespass are satisfied, the parking attendant would be liable for negligent battery and Ivan might claim for compensatory damage to compensate his medical bill and economic loss.
Ivan v Fred
Assault is the intentional creation of an apprehension of an immediate physical violence or unlawful contact. Fred subjectively intended to create an