Commission staff are responsible for updating it. This chapter is concerned with the torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment and intimidation. Closely rixon v star city casino with these is a further tortious action, namely proceedings rixon v star city casino recover damages for malicious prosecution.

The three torts that emerged from the concept of trespass to the person — assault, battery and false imprisonment are actionable per se — that is without proof of damage although if the wrongful act, does result in injury, damages can be recovered for that injury as well. In malicious prosecution proceedings, however, it is necessary to assert and prove damage.

The intent required for the tort rixon v star city casino assault is the desire to arouse an apprehension of physical contact, not necessarily an intention to inflict actual harm.

Employees of the casino saw him and identified him as an excluded person. Mr Rich casino slots unsuccessfully sued for damages for assault, battery and false imprisonment.

These actions were central to the question as to whether Mr Rixon had been the victim of an assault and, in addition, a battery. The circumstances of the case were that two policemen gave chase to Mr Ibbett, in the township of Foster, suspecting that he may have been involved in a criminal offence. They pursued him to a house where he lived with his mother, Mrs Ibbett.

Without legal justification, one of the policemen entered the property and arrested Mr Ibbett. His mother came into the garage where these events occurred. Mrs Ibbett, who was read more elderly woman, had never seen a gun before and was, not unnaturally, petrified.

The trial judge held that both police officers had been on the property without unlawful justification and, additionally, the confrontation between the police officer and Mrs Ibbett was more than sufficient to justify the requirements of an immediate apprehension rich casino slots harm on her part, so as to amount to an assault. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge as later did the High Court.

Although threats that amount to an assault normally encompass words, they will not always do so. For example, actions may suffice if they place the plaintiff in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

As to words, in Barton v Armstrong [] 2 NSWR a politician made threats over the telephone and these were held to be capable of constituting an assault. Given the explosion of modern methods of media communication, there is no reason rixon v star city casino threats made in emails, text messages or on Facebook so long as they satisfy the legal test could not qualify. Importantly, the reasonable apprehension rixon v star city casino relate to an imminent attack.

This requirement means that an assault cannot be proved if the plaintiff is not aware of the threat. Moreover, the apprehension must be a reasonable one.

Thus, if an unloaded gun or a toy pistol is pointed at the plaintiff, the defendant will not be liable where the plaintiff knows or has reason to believe that the gun is not loaded or is rich casino slots toy: Logdon v DPP [] Crim LR A battery is rixon v star city casino voluntary and positive act, done with the intention of causing contact with another, that directly causes that contact: Barker et al at p Inevitably, they involve difficult factual disputes requiring the resolution of widely conflicting rich casino slots as to what happened during a particular occasion or event, whether domestic or otherwise.

The requisite intention for battery is simply this: the defendant must have intended the consequence of the contact with the plaintiff. The defendant need not know the contact is unlawful. He or she need not intend to cause harm or damage as a result of the contact.

A person who pulls the trigger of a rifle believing it to be unloaded may be rich casino slots to be negligent, but will not be liable in trespass, because they did not intend that the bullet from the rifle should strike the injured plaintiff. The requisite intention will have been absent.

In most cases, it will be apparent that an intention to make contact can simply be inferred from the nature and circumstances of the striking. If I strike someone with an axe, it will be apparent, except in the most unusual circumstances, that I intended to make contact rich casino 150 the injured person.

This case is also authority for the proposition that ss 3B 1 a and 21 of the Civil Liability Act NSW do not operate upon the particular cause of action pleaded, but instead upon the particular act which gives rise to the civil liability and the intent of the person doing that act.

Contact, as has been pointed out by academic writers Barker et al at p 41can take a variety of forms. Thus, spitting rich casino slots a person, forcibly taking blood or taking rich casino slots prints would be regarded as contact.

The modern position, however, is that hostile intent or angry state of mind are not necessary to establish battery: Rixon v Star City Pty Ltdabove, at [52]. On the other hand, it is not every contact that will be taken to be a battery. People come into physical contact on a daily basis. Rixon v star city casino example it is impossible to avoid contact with other persons in a crowded train or at a popular sporting or concert event.

This applies to any kind of click the following article liability for personal injury. The legislation places a on the damages which can be awarded for disproportionate acts of self-defence.

Reasonable acts of self-defence against unlawful acts will not be actionable at all. It will be made out if the defendant believed on reasonable grounds that what he did was necessary for the protection of himself, or another. An interference or injury to which a person has consented cannot be wrongful. If the defendant proves that the plaintiff has consented to the acts in question then a claim in assault, battery or false imprisonment will not succeed.

Medical practitioners must obtain consent from the patient to any medical or surgical procedure. However, consent to one procedure does not imply consent to another.

Subject to any possible defence of necessity, the carrying out of a medical procedure that is not the procedure, the subject of a check this out, will constitute a battery.

In Dean v Phung [] NSWCAthe plaintiff was injured at work when a piece of timber struck him on the chin causing minor injuries to his front teeth. His employer arranged for him to see the defendant, a dental surgeon. In proceedings between the plaintiff and the dentist, the latter admitted liability but asserted that the damages were to be assessed in accordance with the Civil Liability Act NSW.

The trial judge accepted that submission, noting that the dentist had admitted liability in negligence but had denied liability for trespass to the person. Accordingly, damages were login playamo casino in accordance with the formula in the Civil Liability Act On appeal, the plaintiff claimed the primary judge had not adequately addressed rixon v star city casino issue of trespass to person.

His case was that the dental treatment had been completely unnecessary to address the problem with his teeth; and the dentist must have known that when embarking on the treatment. Advice that the treatment was necessary must have been fraudulent, consequently the fraud vitiated any consent given to the procedure. Accordingly, the plaintiff argued, the dentist was liable for rixon v star city casino in treating him without a valid consent.

His Honour conducted a detailed examination of consent to medical treatment, including consideration as to who bore the burden of negativing consent. Basten JA at [61]—[64] expressed four principles supported by the authorities he had examined:.

Consent is validly given in respect of medical treatment where the patient has been given basic information as the nature of the proposed procedure. It is necessary to distinguish between core elements of the procedure and peripheral elements, including risks of adverse outcomes. Wrong advice about the latter may involve negligence but will not vitiate consent. The motive of the practitioner in seeking consent will be relevant to the question whether there is a valid consent.

Burden of proof will lie on the practitioner to establish the existence of a valid consent no deposit free spins casino 2015 that is in issue.

If, however, some kind of fraud were required to vitiate consent, Basten JA considered that the dentist at the least had been reckless as to whether the treatment was either appropriate or necessary.

Consequently, on either basis, the plaintiff was entitled to have his damages re-assessed and, in the circumstances, increased. However, Macfarlan JA accepted the dentist had acted fraudulently in the sense that he was reckless as to whether rich casino slots treatment was either rich casino slots or necessary.

The practitioner had performed the treatment to generate income for himself. This enabled a conclusion that consent was vitiated and a trespass had occurred. A young man — only a few months away from his 18th birthday — had refused rich casino slots receive his own treated blood products.

The treatment was necessary to preserve his life. He had provided cogent reasons for his refusal, based on his religious beliefs. His refusal was fully supported by his click to see more who were of the same religious persuasion. The court acknowledged that, without the order, the proposed treatment would have constituted a battery upon the young man. The order was made, notwithstanding that in a few months time, the appellant would be, as an adult, entitled to refuse rixon v star city casino further treatment for his condition.

As in the case of trespass to the person, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to act unlawfully or to cause injury. For example, where a prisoner is held in detention beyond the terms of their sentence as a consequence of an honest mistake, the defendant will nonetheless be liable for false imprisonment: Cowell v Corrective Click to see more Commission NSW 13 NSWLR Traditionally the notion of false imprisonment rixon v star city casino to arrest by police officers or other authorities.

The plaintiff believed he would have been compelled to go along if he had refused. The High Court held that the plaintiff had a justified apprehension that, if he did not submit to do what was asked of him, he would be compelled by force to go rixon v star city casino the defendant.

This restraint thereby imposed on the plaintiff amounted to imprisonment per Walsh J at The respondents imposed a picket near the rixon v star city casino which made it impossible for the appellants to leave by the most direct route without permission. However, there was an alternative route available through the bush for exit purposes. There was also evidence that the protesters were anxious to remain at the site during the duration of the picket. Moreover, the court agreed with the trial judge that an alternative means of exit was both available and reasonable.

There was an altercation between the two brothers and state rail transit officers. One of the transit officers was convicted of a criminal assault on one of the brothers. The plaintiff was a young woman with severe developmental disabilities. She lived in the community but link circumstances where she had been in trouble with the police on occasions.

Ultimately, the Local Court ordered that she be taken to Kanangra, a residential centre which accommodates and treats persons with intellectual and other disabilities, located in Morisett. The Department of Community Services intended that Ms Darcy should be returned to the go here but difficulties of a bureaucratic and funding nature prevented this happening.

Her case was an unusual one and, in the situation which developed, she remained at Kanangra for some six years before residential accommodation was arranged for her.

The primary issue was whether the circumstances of her stay at Kanangra amounted to imprisonment. The secondary issue was whether the Public Guardian had consented to her remaining at the institution.

She did not wish to stay there and, while rixon v star city casino had a relatively wide degree of freedom within the property, she was required to return there after any absence. The degree of latitude she had in being able to leave the premises, for example to visit her mother, was offset by the continue reading that she could only do so with permission, and on condition that she returned to the institute.

The court explored the issue of lawful justification for her detention at Kanangra. In this regard, the court, while acknowledging that the Public Guardian did not consent to Ms Darcy staying at the premises on a permanent basis, nevertheless consented tacitly to her remaining there while attempts were rixon v star city casino to find her appropriate accommodation.

3/25/2021 by Alfonso