Critical Analysis of Trespass to Person

Critical Analysis of Trespass to Person

                                                  

Author:- Mallela Sridivya, a Student of SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bengaluru 

(School of Law)

                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. No.	Content	Pg. No.
1.	ABSTRACT	3
2.	INTRODUCTION	3- 4
3.	LITERATURE REVIEW	4- 7
4.	STATEMENT OF PROBLEM	7
5.	RATIONALE OF STUDY	7- 8
6.	RESEARCH OBJECTIVES	8
7.	RESEARCH QUESTIONS	8
8.	RESEARCH METHODOLOGY	8
9.	CHAPTER- 1- MEANING, NATURE AND SCOPE	9- 10
10.	CHAPTER- 2- JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY	11- 14
11.	CHAPTER- 3- JUDICIAL VIEW IN 21ST CENTURY	15- 18
12.	CHAPTER- 4- CRITICAL ANALYSIS	19- 20
13.	CHAPTER- 5-SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION	21
14.	BIBLIOGRAPHY	21- 22

ABSTRACT

Trespass to person is a part in tort law. Trespass to Person is a tort that often refers to a violation of a person's civil rights without reason. This means interfering with a person’s liberty. It might be purposeful, deliberate or unintentional. There are three types of willful trespass: assault, battery, and false imprisonment. This research paper explains in detail about all three types of trespass to person. This research paper also clears about if there’s intention needed to amount to trespass to a person. Few articles have been mentioned and explained to get to know different viewpoints of writers. Books on the topic trespass to a person have been analyzed to understand what authors say about it with proper definitions and examples. Books of authorized authors have been selected like Salmond and A. K. Jain. The issues in the current laws and the objectives for the topic has been examined. Research questions will be answered in the research paper which is the objective of this research. Detail discussion on trespass to person with defenses available in it. The judicial precedent of 18th and 19th century compared to the 21st century will give a clear view about the transformation in the laws from that time period. Critical analysis is done for the same. Indian laws on trespass to a person are compared to the laws of other countries. Conclusion of the whole research paper to get the gist of it. Suggestions are given at the end of the research paper to improve the present laws in India. 

KEYWORDS- trespass to person, assault, battery, false imprisonment, intension

INTRODUCTION

The tort law has vast number of cases on trespass. Trespass comes under both tort law and criminal law. Trespass to a person is one part in it. Basically, any unlawful physical contact with a person's body is considered a trespass against that person. Trespass can even occur in case of no physical harm. For example, A is standing near the bus stop and B without any reasonable cause hits A, and A gets an injury. This will result as trespass to A as it has affected her personal liberty. Trespass to person is a tort that happens regularly in daily life. Trespassing on a person does not occur unless and until there’s an intention or it is done purposefully. Intention is the primary basis for trespass to person. The plaintiff will hold the burden of proof, he/she should be able to prove the injury or damage caused. 

There are three types of trespass:

1. Assault- It is the first type of trespass to a person. Causing wilful angst or fear in mind of the person to harm or cause injury is called assault. Display acts or intentions to hurt the person which may cause anxiety and panic. 

2. Battery- The second type is battery which is the next stage of assault. Battery means use of unlawful force on another person by direct or indirect means. It is not relevant if the force caused injury.

3. False imprisonment- Restraining a person for a period of time without any lawful justification is called false imprisonment. It is prohibiting someone from travelling in any direction for some time.

LITERATURE REVIEW

• ARTICLES

• Trespass to the person: the effect of mistakes and alternative remedies on liability [2008]

1. In the article “Trespass to the person: The effect of mistakes and alternative remedies on liability” by Nicholas J. McBride is about a case Ashley v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008].

2.  Three points are made. It compares tort and criminal law. First, Law punishes offenders. Sherwood shot Ashley but thought he was doing the right thing. Tort law protects people's rights, not evil doers.

3.  Second, when asked if Sherwood committed a tort by killing Ashley, three Law Lords (Lord Scott, Lord Rodger, and Lord Neuberger) did not provide an answer. Sherwood had reasonable (but mistaken) grounds for believing Ashley was planning to murder him.

4.  Third Law Lords approved well with Chief Constable that Ashley’s family will get less by claiming. Lord Scott said Ashley's family can seek "vindicatory damages" for a violation of rights.

• Trespass to the person must intention or negligence be proved [1960]

1. In the article “trespass to the person must intention or negligence be proved.” By A. G. Davis talks about a case N Beals v. Hayward, McGregor J.

2. The Supreme Court of New Zealand's decision in Beals v. Hayward, decided by McGregor J., introduced a new chapter to the debate over whether or not the defendant's negligence must be proven and, if not, on whom the burden of proof falls.

• Trespass to person, human rights and ethically contaminated food: freedom of belief and bodily autonomy [2019]

1. In this article “trespass to person, human rights and ethically contaminated food: freedom of belief and bodily autonomy” written by Javier Garcia Olivia and Hellen Hall speaks about individuals who are victims of ethical spiking.

2. Victims of ethical spiking, in which someone intentionally serves them food that is harmful to them physiologically but offensive to their morals, are protected by tort law in England and Wales. This article considers what this might mean for the future of trespass to the person in the United Kingdom.

3. In the English and Welsh paradigm, trespass is the model tort for safeguarding individual autonomy over one's own body, and hence represents the most logical and transparent course of action. Respect for individual freedom of thought and conscience is consistent with the justification of essential Convention rights where such rights are given effect under Common Law through a recognised cause of action.

• BOOKS

• Ashok K. Jain LAW OF TORTS 

A.K. Jain defines a ‘battery’ as “intentional and direct application of force to another person without any lawful justification”. Trivial force is adequate; bodily harm is unnecessary. Anger is a battery. Forcing someone to undergo medical treatment against their will is also deemed battery, as is spitting in someone's face, throwing anything at them, or grabbing them by the collar.

1. Forcing a trespasser from a property is justified. Trespassers can be attacked with reasonable force. Excessive force (such as fixing a live wire without warning) is illegal. Trespassers are accountable for injuries they cause, but they do not lose their ability to sue for injuries they suffer.

• Sir John Salmond “The law of torts; a treatise on the English law of liability for civil injuries” 

1. Sir John Salmond defined false imprisonment as “The wrong of false imprisonment consists in the act of arresting or imprisoning   any person without lawful justification, or   otherwise   preventing him   without lawful justification from exercising his right of leaving the place in which he is.”

2. Locking a man in a room he's already in by his own conduct is false confinement, but not assault. Imprisonment is a unique form of violence that requires independent classification.

3. No real incarceration is required to constitute the wrong. It's sufficed if the plaintiff's liberty was illegally taken. A mere unlawful arrest constitutes false imprisonment, as is any act that prevents a person from leaving a place, such as a house or ship.

• Ratanlal and Dhirajlal the Law of Torts 

1. In this book assault id defined as “An assault is an attempt or a threat to do a corporeal hurt to another, coupled with an apparent present ability and intention to do the act”. Assaults don't require physical contact, but batteries must. Without real physical violence, not every threat constitutes an assault; there has to be a means to carry out the threat.

2. Any gesture intended to induce in the party threatened a reasonable perception that the threatening party plans to offer harm, or is "about to deploy unlawful force the person frightened, constitutes an assault in law if linked with the capacity to go after such an intention. Assault is both physical and purposeful.

3. Words aren't an assault. The words the threat-maker speaks at the time can either make his gestures an attack or keep them from being one.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Real challenge comes when it is uncertain whether a claim for trespass to person may be taken to court if the defendant's behaviour was unintentional.

  If the behaviour of the defendant was unintentional, there is no basis for an action under this tort. Instead, a claim for negligence would be brought forward. Trespassing on a person is an actionable tort in and of itself. This implies that the plaintiff does not have to demonstrate that he has been harmed as a direct result of the trespasser's actions.

RATIONALE OF STUDY

The overall objective of this line of research is to investigate the act of committing trespass against a person. In the context of tort law, to get familiar with the many types of trespassing and the important elements involved. The distinctions between assault, false imprisonment, and battery are investigated. Assess the available defences in the case of trespassing on the trespass of a person. Investigate the relevance of intension to the subject in hand.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

• To understand trespass to person in detail.

• To analyse the difference between three types of trespass to person. 

• To understand applicability of intention in trespass to person.

• To understanding different defenses present in trespass to person.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What are the essentials that amount to trespass to a person?

• Is intention relevant in this tort?

• Does physical contact constitute to battery in tort law?

• What are the defenses available for trespass to a person?

• Does menacing language considered as assault in tort law?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

The methodology that would be applied for carrying out this research is doctrinal, analytical and comparative research. In this research the primary sources of data are the Indian Penal Code (IPC), The Constitution, Judicial Precedents, Rules, Government Orders, Report of various Committees. The secondary sources of data comprise of scholarly articles, online journals, published books, journals, research reports and others.

CHAPTER- 1

MEANING, NATURE AND SCOPE OF TOPIC

One definition of trespass is any conduct that goes beyond the boundaries established by the law. It is the intentional and directed interference with another individual's person or property in an unjustifiable manner. The term "intention" in this context suggests that the wrongdoing was done on purpose. An accusation of trespass may be brought forward when there is interference with one's own body, the body of a third person, or private property. Intention is the most important factor in determining whether or not someone has committed trespassing, so. When someone has bad intentions and the underlying motive to harass another person, it can lead to conduct that is unreasonable.

  Assault: Many common law jurisdictions consider assault a crime and a tort. A person commits criminal assault if they willfully, knowingly, or carelessly inflict physical harm to another, negligently cause physical harm with a dangerous weapon, or violently threaten substantial bodily harm to another. irrational dread IPC 351 defines assault.

Essentials for assault: Intent, apparent capacity for the task, apprehension, and awareness of the danger.

  False imprisonment: False imprisonment is the temporary restriction of a person's freedom of movement in all directions. It's illegal imprisonment under section 340 of the IPC.

Essentials for false imprisonment: complete limitation on one's freedom and illegal constraint.

Battery: Unjustified force against another. Battery is touching someone hostilely or against their will, even mildly. Indirect force is like placing a dog behind a person or spitting on them. IPC 350 defines battery as 'criminal force' The wrongdoing must be physical.

Essentials for battery: Unlawful physical contact; Forceful; Voluntary; Accidental contact or push in the market isn't battery.

Defenses under trespass to a person: 

1. Consent to plaintiff- If the plaintiff agreed to the defendant's behaviour, then the defendant is not trespassing.

2. Contributory negligence- When plaintiff's carelessness is involved, defendant's culpability might be minimized, a compromise reached, or blame split.

3. Self- defense- A person can trespass to prevent an unruly element or other occurrence from occurring. Proportionality and likelihood should be considered when intruding into plaintiff property, and the defendant must argue that he had no other alternative than to do so.

4. Statutory authority- Searches and seizures required by law and consent-based physical searches are not trespasses. Considering social and public interest, entering public spaces and commercial private property is not trespassing.

5. Preservation of public peace.

CHAPTER- 2

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN 18TH AND 19TH CENTURY

• Stephens v Myers (1853)

                Facts:

1. The conference was being presided over by the claimant at a nearby church. The accused occupied the seat at the other end of the table. The conversation quickly turned highly contentious. After rising from his seat, the defendant addressed the claimant by stating that he would "rather rip the chairman out of the chair, then being turned out of the room." After then, he moved closer to the claimant while shaking his fist. According to the witnesses, the defendant's intention was to harm the plaintiff. However, the churchwarden was able to prevent him from getting close enough to attack before he could.

2.   The plaintiff filed an assault case against the defendant. The defendant argued that the occurrence did not amount to an assault because he was incapable of carrying out any menace he made.

                   Issues:

1. Whether the defendant's words or conduct constituted an assault

                  Judgement:

                    The judge determined that the defendant's actions and words constitute an assault if he has the capability to carry out the threat. If the defendant was moving toward the claimant in a menacing way and his strike would have impacted the claimant, had he not been prevented by a third party, then this would be considered a valid defense. The claimant was awarded damages by the jury, which found that the defendant was responsible for the assault that occurred.

• Fowler v Lanning (1959)

Facts:

1. The complainant, who was participating in a hunting group, was shot. Simply put, he stated that the defendant was the one who shot him.

2. The plaintiff filed a claim for trespass, but they only said that the gunshot was place. They gave the defendant the opportunity to explain their actions.

3. The plaintiff claimed that all he required to prove that he had been shot with his own pistol, and his case would be won.

4. He contended that it was unnecessary for him to demonstrate whether or not he meant for the pistol to go off or whether or not he was careless in the use of his rifle.

               Issues:

1. In other words, did the conduct constitute unlawful contact with the individual, which would make it a battery, or did it not?

2. If it is up to the plaintiff to prove negligence or trespass, whose responsibility is it to bear the burden of proof?

  Judgement:

1. It was decided that a trespass to the person could not be committed if the injury sustained by the plaintiff was the result of an accident that was not the result of the defendant's negligence.

2. If negligence was a necessary element of unintentional trespass only when the circumstances proven that the claimant assumed the risk of unforeseen harm, then the plaintiff under this case must be considered to have assumed such a risk arising out of any actions of his neighbour that, in the absence of harm to the claimant, would not be unlawful. This is due to the fact that the plaintiff took the risk of an unavoidable damage.

3. In cases in which there was no intention to cause the trespass, the plaintiff is responsible for proving negligence.

• Wilson v pringle (1986)

Facts:

1. The defendant, playing a prank on the claimant by pulling another 13-year-old student's school bag, caused the claimant to lose their balance and sustain hip injuries. The court decided that there must be hostile intent in order for there to be an actionable battery.

Issues:

1. Whether or if a claim for battery may be established to exist

2. How exactly did the term "touch" become linked with "battery"?

Judgement:

1. It was decided that the behavior of the defendant did not constitute a hostile conduct, hence a claim of battery could not be proven. As a result, the appeal was successful.

2. The Court of Appeals has determined that battery is a form of physical contact that is usually unacceptable in daily life. The defendant must intentionally touch or contact the plaintiff to constitute battery. The touching must be demonstrated to be hostile and cannot be associated with malice or ill will.

• Letang v cooper (1965)

     Facts:

1. During the summer of 1957, Ms. Letang could be seen sunbathing in the open air on a patch of land that was generally used for the parking of automobiles. Inconsiderately, Mr. Cooper backed his Jaguar automobile on her legs as she was sunning herself, so causing her to sustain injuries.

Issue:

1. Because up until that point, the tort of trespass to the person was used including both types of scenarios, the question in this case was whether or not it was feasible to bring a claim for trespass to the person if the activity was careless rather than malicious.

Judgement:

1. The Court of Appeal has ruled that Ms Letang could not sue Mr Cooper for £575 damages as her claim was late under negligence. The appeal was allowed and an amount of £575 was made out to the Appellant (Mr. Cooper) by way of payment from Mr. Cooper's insurance company.

• Lane v Holloway (1968)

                   Facts:

1. The claimant and the accused had a history of poor ties and were neighbours.

The plaintiff dared the accused to a duel after the latter's wife referred to him as a "monkey-faced tart." The claimant hit the accused in the shoulder when he believed the accused was about to strike him. In response, the defendant punched the plaintiff in the eye, inflicting severe damage.

Issue:

1. Does this situation qualify for the illegality defense?

2. Does this situation qualify as a "volenti non fit injuria" defense?

3. Should the claimant's provocation be taken into account when determining the extent of the claimant's losses or when deciding whether the claimant was partially at fault?

Judgement:

The claimant was successful in their appeal to the Court of Appeal. Since the strike delivered by the defendant was disproportionate to the provocation received by the claimant, neither defense was applicable. Even if the claimant had been provoked, the fact that they had been hurt was not altered. Because of this, including it in the calculation of damages was pointless.

CHAPTER- 3

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN 21ST CENTURY 

• Bici v Ministry of Defense (2004)

Facts:

1. Soldiers who were participating in United Nations peacekeeping operations in Kosovo had a duty to prevent personal injury to members of the public.

2. These soldiers broke this duty when they intentionally fired on a vehicle that was full of people, despite the fact that they had no legal justification for doing so.

3.  Troops opened fire on S and M's automobile, killing them and several other Kosovar Albanians. M was another injured passenger. S wasn't physically wounded, but she may have experienced emotional anguish from her fear and watching the horrible event.

4.  The troops claimed self-defense.

5.  The Ministry of Defense (MOD) recognized vicariously responsibility for armed military wrongdoing. Under section 12 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, the MOD's legal liability is examined using English law.

Issues:

1. Claimants brought up problems relating to recklessness, the idea of transferred malice, and the Wilkinson and Downton principle.

2. In addition to the defense of self-defense, the Ministry of Defense (MOD) also raised the defense of "combat immunity," claiming that the military owed the plaintiffs no duty of care and that it was unnecessary to them to do so.                 Judgements:

1. When the troops fired their guns, they weren't threatened with being shot and had no reason to assume so. Thus, self-defense failed.

2. 2. Soldiers were given a mission despite no government-related violence.

3. 3. The MOD was deemed vicariously responsible for a breach of duty to avoid physical harm.

4. 4. The MOD was accountable for M's losses under trespass and carelessness. (5) S's assault claim was unfounded. No evidence showed that the military intended to directly scare him. 

• Dunnage v Randell (2015)

Facts:

1. Appellant Mr. Dunnage was a nephew of the late Mr. Randall. Mr. Randall, who suffers from a severe mental condition, doused himself in gasoline and attempted suicide by setting himself on fire. The protagonist, Mr. Dunnage, attempted to save his uncle from harm. Unfortunately, Mr. Randall passed away, During the procedure, Mr. Dunnage received serious burns on his face and body.

2. Mr. Dunnage filed a negligence lawsuit against Mr. Randall, who has been represented by his former wife, and also the insurance company of Mr. Randall's residence, where the event occurred, for damages.

Issues:

1. Could Mr. Randall be held responsible for Mr. Dunnage's well-being, despite the fact that he was suffering from a severe mental disorder? How about a negligence suit against him?

Judgement:

1. The Court of Appeal concluded that illogical behaviour cannot exempt a person from negligence responsibility. As long as the defendant's mental or physical health impairment has not completely removed his ability to regulate his conduct, he remains liable. Mr. Randall's medical condition just 'impaired' him, and his mind, however bad, nonetheless drove his actions.

• Regina v Sol Edwards (2022)

Facts:

1. On the evening of March 30, 2019, the appellant, who was only 17 years old at the time, spent the night with a group of peers who went to a club. They left the venue with a youthful woman in order to go to her apartment, and they later reassembled close to her apartment for what seems to have been an act of violence.

2. The most serious injuries, including fractures to Nathan Tonge's eye socket and cheekbone, which required surgical intervention, were sustained by Nathan Tonge. After attempting to stop Nathan Tonge from assaulting Ross Tonge, Ross sustained a cut just below his eye, along with pain and bruising. The attack left both of the complainants with psychological wounds that needed to be treated.

           Judgement:

1. The appellant (then age 20) was found guilty on 03- 03 -2022 in the Crown Court in Reading of one crime of intentionally causing great bodily damage and one count of assault resulting in actual bodily harm following a trial. He was given a total of five years in a juvenile detention institution on April 7, 2022, before the same court. With permission from the solitary judge, he appeals that judgement.

• The King on the application of MH (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2022)

Facts:

1. A, an Eritrean national born on September 6, 1997, entered the UK in secret on a lorry in February 2016. According to his version, he had flown from Eritrea through Sudan and then to Libya. He spent roughly four months in Calais, when Italian authorities took his fingerprints.

2. Eurodac fingerprint matches showed the Judge where and when he was fingerprinted. The match, dated 3 February 2016, may also support A's asylum claim date. On March 20, 2016, the UK requested that Italy "take responsibility" of A's refugee application. A received a letter from Lunar House's Secretary of State on 17 June 2016. The Lunar House 4th Floor sent the letter.

3. The letter informed A that a Tigrinian interpreter would be given "as requested" and that his asylum claim could be revoked if he didn't attend the interview. The Secretary of State appealed A's asylum denial using digital records. They cover 3 Feb to 21 December 2016 from bundle pages 416 to 426, and 9 February 2016 to 8 Mar 2017 from pages 427 to 441. A's is a "definite TCU case under article 13.1 of the Dublin Regulation" according to a 2 March 2016 entry. A's case becomes TCU non-detained two days later. 6 April–5 September 2016 has no entries. A was arrested on 4 October and ordered deported to Italy on 11 November 2016.

Issues:

1. The main issue in this appeal is whether it is academic, as the Secretary of State currently claims, or if A can change his position and, specifically, whether he is entitled to damages for unlawful imprisonment depending on how it is decided. If the appeal is academic, there's also the issue of how much, and for what purposes, this Court can still assess its merits.

            Judgement:

1. The Dublin III Regulation intends to make it easy to determine which Member State will review an asylum application. It should use "objective, fair standards" to rapidly identify the liable member state. A contended that a member state could exercise article 17.1 discretion without making a formal judgement. The discretion alone transferred asylum claim review. Secretary of State said that the Dublin III Regulation did not require asylum applicants to be interviewed. That provision governs the judgement. That's not proven in this case (paragraph 52).

2. 'There must be proof that a judgment has been reached on principle that engages with the objective of Article 17(1)' No formal decision was needed.

• MXX v A Secondary School (2022)

        Facts:

1. Between February 24 and February 28, 2014, a former student of the defendant, PXM, age 18, participated in an internship program at the defendant's school. Before receiving the police's revelation, the actual dates of the WEP were unknown. PXM is vicariously accountable for any wrongs that PXM causes to her. Assault, battery, and deliberate infliction of damage are the torts that are cited.

2. The Claimant uses PXM's convictions at Portsmouth Crown Court as evidence that she was the victim of serious sexual offences. The defendant claims that even if the components necessary to establish the tort of deliberate infliction of injury are established, they would have occurred after the WEP even though they do not admit they must be established.

       Issues:

1. What was the communication in between Claimant and PXM like, when did it happen, and under what conditions?

2. What wrongdoing by PXM against Claimant is proven to have occurred?

3. Is the defendant indirectly responsible for any or all of the established torts?

      Judgement:

1. The claimant was unquestionably a victim of heinous and unlawful acts of sexual assault committed by the Defendant. This ruling should not in any way be interpreted as downplaying the significance of that fact.

CHAPTER- 4

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Analyzing the judgements of 18th and 19th century and comparing then with the current 21st century judgements it is derived that there have been changes in the law of torts for trespass to a person. Historically, trespass was defined as causing direct and physical harm to a person. Intention was a required component of wrongdoing, but it implied that the wrongdoing was committed deliberately. Even if the perpetrator did not realise that the property belonged to someone else, the wrongdoing was purposeful. However, if a man was pushed onto another's land, this did not constitute trespass. This is because the term "Force" was only an appealing phrase that was subsequently omitted, but the word "direct" preserved its importance and separated "trespass" from "trespass on the case." It divides the personal injury cause of action into "trespass" (direct harm) and "case" (consequential damage). Now, it is determined whether the trespass was committed purposefully or accidently. After the judgement in Letang v. Cooper, only cases involving deliberate torts like assault, battery, unlawful restraint, trespass to property or chattels, etc. can result in an action for trespass to the person. To establish liability for injuries or property damage caused by another party's negligence, the plaintiff must provide evidence of each element of the tort of negligence.

   Trespass to person is more or less the same in every country. Comparing Indian laws with Australian laws on trespass to a person it is seen that even in the Australian law for trespass, trespass is divided into three parts- assault, battery, false imprisonment. The damages given to the person who has suffered assault, battery or false imprisonment are nominal damages, exemplary damages, compensation, aggravated damages and injunction. This was for the civil wrongs caused by a person.

In case of criminal wrongs, any actions or inactions on the part of a healthcare provider that result in harm or death to a patient are subject to criminal law. In such cases, the state may bring criminal charges and seek punishments (including jail time or monetary fines) in a court of law. Assault, battery, and false imprisonment are all mentioned here since they are illegal acts that can be brought before a criminal court. In addition, under criminal law, consent isn't necessarily a defense; a doctor who intentionally causes a patient's death, with or without consent, could be charged with murder. 

CHAPTER-5 

SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Intention is the fundamental basis and core of this tort of trespass to person. In the absence of intent, negligence will be the applicable cause of action. Because of the distinction between trespass to person and negligence, individuals frequently file the incorrect lawsuit. Also, not every contact is undesired or illegal, as demonstrated by the project's use of real-world situations. It is crucial for individuals to be able to distinguish whether behaviours comprise the tort of trespass.

Trespass to person is a type of tort that people experience on a daily basis, but because they are unaware of the legal remedies available, they suffer in quiet and do not file lawsuits. This project was primarily concerned with describing the subtleties of each sort of trespass against a person, as well as discussing cases involving each component of these trespasses. Even the legal defenses for this tort are numerous, and the significance of purpose in the tort of trespass as a whole has been explored upon.

Suggestions 

1. As the number of cases concerning these rights has been rising rapidly, which makes it difficult to resolve them swiftly and depleting clients' resources, I would recommend taking the necessary efforts to minimize the period for assault and battery issues, which may involve creating more courts. For example, during covid times, there were a lot of cases of assault and battery which are still pending in the court.

2. There should be strong sanctions for those who are responsible for serious offences. The amount of the damages as well as the reimbursement should be appropriate.

3. Citizens should be aware of their rights and seek for redressal without any fear or confusion. The citizens ought to be taught and motivated in the same manner.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Articles

1. Nicholas J. McBride, Trespass to the person: the effect of mistakes and alternative remedies on liability [2008], The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 67, no. 3, 

2. A. G. Davis, Trespass to the person must intention or negligence be proved [1960], Vol. 23, ISSN:

3.  Javier Garcia, Trespass to person, human rights and ethically contaminated food: freedom of belief and bodily autonomy [2019], Journal of European Tort Law

• BOOKS

1. Ashok K. Jain, LAW OF TORTS, Ascent Publications, ISBN: 978-81-935556-0-6

2. Sir John Salmond “The law of torts; a treatise on the English law of liability for civil injuries”, ISBN: 0421459808

3.     Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, ISBN: 9789386515667

• Case laws

Stephens v Myers (1853)

Fowler v Lanning (1959)

Wilson v pringle (1986)

Letang v cooper (1965)

Lane v Holloway (1968)

Bici v Ministry of Defense (2004)

Dunnage v Randell (2015)

Regina v Sol Edwards (2022)

MXX v A Secondary School (2022)

The King on the application of MH (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2022)

• Webliography 

www.jstor.com

www.westlawasia.com

www.manupatra.com

www.scconline.com

www.heinonline.com

*Mallela Sridivya, a Student of SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bengaluru *