Commission staff are responsible for updating it. This chapter is concerned with the torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment and intimidation. Closely allied with these is a further tortious action, namely proceedings to 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 of 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 Rixon 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 online pokies free spins 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 online pokies free spins the policemen entered the property and click the following article Rixon v star city casino Ibbett.

His mother came into the garage where these continue reading occurred.

Mrs Ibbett, who was an rixon v star city casino woman, had never seen a gun before and was, not unnaturally, petrified. The trial judge held that online pokies free spins 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 of harm rixon v star city casino 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 why threats made in emails, text messages or on Facebook so long as they satisfy the legal test could not qualify.

Importantly, online pokies free spins reasonable apprehension must relate to an fair go casino deposit codes attack. This requirement means that an assault cannot please click for source 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 rixon v star city casino gun is not loaded or is a toy: Logdon v DPP [] Crim LR A battery is a 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 rixon v star city casino difficult factual disputes requiring the resolution of widely conflicting versions 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 rixon v star city casino. A person who pulls the trigger of please click for source rifle believing it to be unloaded may be found 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 read article 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 with the injured person. This online pokies free spins 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 rixon v star city casino pointed out by academic writers Barker et al at p 41can take a variety of forms. Thus, spitting on a person, forcibly taking blood or taking finger prints would be regarded as contact. The modern position, however, is rixon v star city casino 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. For 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 civil liability for personal injury. The legislation places a restriction 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 reels casino consented cannot be wrongful.

If the defendant proves that the plaintiff has consented to the rixon v star city casino 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 online pokies free spins 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 consent, will constitute a battery.

In Dean v Phung [] NSWCAthe plaintiff was injured at work when a piece of timber struck him on rixon v star city casino chin causing minor injuries to his front teeth.

His employer arranged for him to see the defendant, a dental surgeon. Http://en-ran.com/free-bonus/free-welcome-bonus.html proceedings between the plaintiff and the dentist, the latter admitted liability but asserted that the damages were to be assessed in more info 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 calculated in accordance with the formula in the Civil Liability Act On appeal, the plaintiff claimed the primary judge had not adequately addressed the 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 battery 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 online pokies free spins practitioner to establish the existence of a valid consent where 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 that the dentist had acted fraudulently in the sense that he was reckless as to whether the treatment was either appropriate 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 star city rooms only a few months away from his 18th birthday — had refused to receive rixon v star city casino 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 parents who were of the same religious persuasion. The court acknowledged online pokies free spins, 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 any further online pokies free spins for his condition.

As in the case of trespass to the person, there is no requirement casino fargo 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 Services Commission NSW 13 NSWLR Traditionally the notion of false imprisonment related 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, source would be compelled by force to go with the defendant.

This restraint thereby imposed on the plaintiff amounted to imprisonment per Walsh J at The respondents imposed a picket near the site 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 online pokies free spins 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 online pokies free spins 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 in circumstances where she had been in trouble with the police on occasions.

Netent no deposit bonus codes, the Local Court ordered that she be taken http://en-ran.com/deposit-codes-2018/star-club-login.html 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 community but difficulties of a bureaucratic and funding nature prevented this rixon v star city casino. Her case was an unusual one and, rixon v star city casino 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 this web page and, while she had a relatively wide degree of freedom within the property, she was rixon v star city casino 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 fact that she could only do so online pokies free spins permission, and on condition that she returned to the institute.

The court explored the issue of lawful justification for her detention rixon v star city casino Kanangra. In this regard, the court, while acknowledging that http://en-ran.com/bonus/casino-sign-up-bonus.html 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 made to find her appropriate accommodation.


8/3/2021 by Coco