Please abeg biko help me out here i havnt been able to do this assignment, the stuff is confusing me


Law of torts assignment

John a year two student in the department of insurance, university of Benin fresh from his knowledge of the tort of trespass to person, has result to commence an action against his roommate Tobi for threatening to stab him with their kitchen knife after a hitted argument.

(a) determine the appropriate action to be commenced by john and his chances of succeeding

(b) would your choice of action differ if Tobi had given John a friendly slap in the course of the action?

Support your answer with appropriate legal authority

Interesting. Over to the the Legal Eagles in the house.

pressplay411:
Interesting. Over to the the Legal Eagles in the house.

any one nor gree come out o

TRESPASS TO THE PERSON
ASSAULT
An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful, force on his person.

It was said in R v Meade and Belt (1823) 1 Lew CC 184, that 'no words or singing are equivalent to an assault'. However, the House of Lords have more recently stated that an assault can be committed by the Court of Appeal in R v Constanza [1997] Crim LR 576.

It is much more authoritative that words will not constitute an assault if they are phrased in such a way that negatives any threat that the defendant is making. See:

Tuberville v Savage (1669) 86 ER 684

Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735

The claimant must have reasonably expected an immediate battery. Thus in Stephens v Myers (1830) 172 ER 735, the defendant made a violent gesture at the plaintiff by waiving a clenched fist, but was prevented from reaching him by the intervention of third parties. The defendant was liable for assault.

PART B

CONSENT

Consent may be given expressly by words or be implied from conduct.

A person is deemed to consent to a reasonable degree of physical contact as a result of social interaction (see Collins v Wilcock, above).

Those who take part in sports also consent to a reasonable degree of physical contact during the course of play, ie within the rules, even to the risk of being unintentionally injured. However, there can be no consent to deliberate acts of violence (R v Billinghurst [1978] Crim LR 553).

What is meant by 'informed consent' and does English law recognise such a doctrine? Informed consent is the notion that consent is not valid unless all the risks of a surgical procedure have been explained. A person may not bring an action, in trespass or negligence, on the ground that they had not been informed of the potential consequences.

The issue in trespass is whether the patient consented to what was being done, and the issue in negligence is whether the patient should have been informed of the risks.

Every adult has the right to refuse medical treatment even if it will result in permanent injury or even death. However, a person may de deprived of his capacity to decide either by long term mental incapacity or temporary factors such as unconsciousness or confusion or the effects of fatigue, shock, pain or drugs. In such a case, it is the duty of the doctors to treat him in whatever way they consider, in the exercise of their clinical judgment, to be in his best interests.

AmanRoyal:

PART B

CONSENT

Consent may be given expressly by words or be implied from conduct.

A person is deemed to consent to a reasonable degree of physical contact as a result of social interaction (see Collins v Wilcock, above).

Those who take part in sports also consent to a reasonable degree of physical contact during the course of play, ie within the rules, even to the risk of being unintentionally injured. However, there can be no consent to deliberate acts of violence (R v Billinghurst [1978] Crim LR 553).

What is meant by 'informed consent' and does English law recognise such a doctrine? Informed consent is the notion that consent is not valid unless all the risks of a surgical procedure have been explained. A person may not bring an action, in trespass or negligence, on the ground that they had not been informed of the potential consequences.

The issue in trespass is whether the patient consented to what was being done, and the issue in negligence is whether the patient should have been informed of the risks.

Every adult has the right to refuse medical treatment even if it will result in permanent injury or even death. However, a person may de deprived of his capacity to decide either by long term mental incapacity or temporary factors such as unconsciousness or confusion or the effects of fatigue, shock, pain or drugs. In such a case, it is the duty of the doctors to treat him in whatever way they consider, in the exercise of their clinical judgment, to be in his best interests.

thank you sir God bless you