Skip to content

Trespass to the person

Doctrine in Tort. 27 cases, with the principle each one established. By lanbuk.com.

  • Att.-Gen. v Holden, 1957-60 ALR S.L. 20

    Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1957-60

    Principle established: A presiding election officer with a duty to maintain order at a polling station may use necessary force without committing assault to remove a person who refuses to behave.

  • Blake v Barnard

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1840

    Principle established: On this view an assault needs an apparent present ability to carry out the threat.

  • Cockcroft v Smith

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1705

    Principle established: A person may use only reasonable force in self-defence.

  • Cole v Turner

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1704

    Principle established: The slightest contact can be a battery if done with hostility; ordinary social contact is not.

  • Cook v Beal

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1697

    Principle established: Force used in self-defence must be reasonable and proportionate.

  • Edward Walworth Bell & Claude Emile Wright [1921] SLCA 2 (23 January 1921)

    Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1921

    Principle established: A military officer acting in aid of civil power may use reasonable force to eject a civilian who attempts to force entry into a military-occupied public building in violation of orders.

  • Ford v Skinner

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1830

    Principle established: The act comprising a battery must be done without the claimant's consent.

  • Hook v Cunard Steamship Co Ltd

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1953

    Principle established: A captain may use reasonable force or restraint only when he reasonably believes it necessary for safety.

  • Kwekumensa v The King

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts

    Principle established: Conduct that puts a person in reasonable fear of immediate force is an assault.

  • Lane v Holloway

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1968

    Principle established: Excessive force is not justified by a minor attack.

  • Leigh v Gladstone

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1909

    Principle established: Necessity can justify a trespass done to prevent greater harm.

  • Livingstone v Ministry of Defence

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1984

    Principle established: Intention to apply force to one person can be 'transferred' to the person who is actually hit.

  • Meade's and Belt's Case

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1823

    Principle established: Threatening words alone were traditionally not an assault without some act.

  • Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1919

    Principle established: Knowledge of the restraint is not required; it goes only to damages (Atkin LJ).

  • Murray v Ministry of Defence

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1988

    Principle established: A person may be falsely imprisoned while unaware, e.g. while asleep, though damages may then be nominal.

  • Nash v Sheen

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1953

    Principle established: Consent covers only the act actually agreed to; going beyond it is trespass to the person.

  • R v Billinghurst

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1978

    Principle established: Players consent only to contact within the normal course of the game, not to deliberate foul play beyond what is expected.

  • R v St George

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1840

    Principle established: Assault turns on the reasonable apprehension of immediate force.

  • Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1910

    Principle established: Where a person's liberty is subject to a reasonable condition he has accepted, restraining him until it is met is not false imprisonment.

  • Saurosi and Another v S [2025] ZWSC 139 (5 June 2025)

    Zimbabwe · 2025

    Principle established: In an appeal against sentence, the court will only interfere if the trial court committed a misdirection or if the sentence is so severe as to shock the conscience of the court.

  • Scott v Shepherd

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1773

    Principle established: Involuntary or instinctive acts of third parties do not break the chain of causation.

  • Siaka v Sierra Leone Diamond

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts

    Principle established: A patient cannot sue for force within the scope of the express or implied consent.

  • Siaka v Sierra Leone Diamonds Limited (CIV APP 18 of 1971) [1972] SLCA 1285 (25 May 1972)

    Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1972

    Principle established: Volenti non fit injuria applies to bar an action for assault against an employer where an employee voluntarily and knowingly participates in a trial by ordeal outside the course of employment.

  • Siaka v Sierra Leone Diamonds Ltd, 1972-73 ALR S.L. 111

    Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1972-73

    Principle established: The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria bars an employee from claiming damages for assault against an employer when the employee voluntarily participated in a trial by ordeal outside employment.

  • Stanley v Powell

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1891

    Principle established: Inevitable accident is a defence where the harm could not have been avoided by reasonable care.

  • Tuberville v Savage

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1669

    Principle established: Words can negate what would otherwise be an assault, since they remove the fear of immediate violence.

  • Wilson v Pringle

    Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1987

    Principle established: Unless it is obvious from the act itself, the claimant must show that the touching was hostile.