Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2. Scott v Shepherd (1773, ?) Directness- Acts done in self preservation aren’t voluntary
act and therefore don’t count as intervening actions at all.
- Facts; D threw a lighted squib into a crowded market. 1st store owner picked in up an
threw it into another store, and 2nd owner also threw it away and it struck V face and
burst putting out his eye.
- Issue: Whether there was a direct connection between the action of D and contact
with P body?
o Self preservation; Directness made out b/c 1st and 2nd store owner’s actions
were actions of self preservation. Therefore we ignore their actions and all we are
left with is D actions.
o Inevitable chain of consequences; If actions set off an inevitable chain of
consequences; direct cause.
__________________________________________________________________________
_________
- Issue: Whether D act of laying the bait was a direct cause or merely consequential?
- Held: D act was not a direct cause but merely consequential. Therefore not found
guilty for trespass
oDeath of the dogs didn’t result directly from D placing the meat on his land
b/c the P dog would never have been harmed if the plaintiff didn’t bring the
dog onto D land. That is a voluntary action which prevent directness being
made out. Bringing the dogs on the land was the intervening act.
o Compared. If the D threw poisen meat directly to the dogs and dogs ate it-
there crt said directness would have been made out.
o Infer- Actions of dogs don’t count for intervening act for these purposes.
Further suggests looking a human actions.
____________________________________________________________________
4. Southport Corporations v Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd (1954 QB) Directness- Doesn’t
include thing out of D control
- Facts;. Oil had been discharged from a tanker stranded in an estuary and carried by
the tide on to the P foreshore.
- Held: No directness.
o Oil was not discharged directly onto P foreshore, but was carried by the tide, the
interference was consequential.
In exam state;
Law on the directness is unclear.
Explain why it is unclear; unclear as to what is considered intervening?
How it should be resolved on the facts that it is given in the exam
Rem not right answer…just want a well argument to deal with an unclear area of law
.
__________________________________________________________________________
________
- Facts;. D (employee of casino) approached P (excluded person from the casino) who
was in the casino, and required him to go to the interview room and detained until
police arrive. P appealed unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and assault and battery.
__________________________________________________________________________
_________
- Held: Appellents actions in threatening B with the knife, even though the threat was
accompanied by words of conditional threat, constituted an assault.
o D threats went ‘beyong the ordinary bounds of self defence’; Appellent
could have clearly avoided the force threatened against him if he had
consented to move his taxi from the place which he had usurped at the head
of the queue and if, instead of trying to get out of the taxi, he himself had
closed the door and locked it, or if he had moved to the near side of the front
seat to be out of reach of any force which A might have used against him
- Held: Appellents actions in threatening B with the knife, even though the threat was
accompanied by words of conditional threat, constituted an assault.
- Held: D not guilty of assault – words indicated that despite making his
gesture, D did not actually intend to use force on V – could not have created
apprehension of harm.
__________________________________________________________________________
- Issue: Did D actions (calling and threatening over the phone) constitute an assault?
o The threats over the phone: in such circumstance are not ‘properly
categorised as mere words’. Much depended on the circumstances. Threats
over the phone could put a person in fear of later physical violence and that
this can constitute an assault although the victim does not know exactly or
even approximately when that physical violence may be applied.
__________________________________________________________________________
- Facts;.
- Issue:
- Held: