Welcome to 100% Compensation

Provided that the specified rules of battery claims in negligence are followed and applied, there will be guaranteed 100 percent compensation if the rules fit the individual situation.

Battery is essentially the application of unlawful force. Usually there is a need to show more than ordinary collisions of life, such as bumping into someone on the street, in order to bring a successful action in battery. This means that a definition of battery would be that the defendant, intending the result, does an act that directly and physically affects the person of the claimant.

This means that there is the requirement that there should be a direct and intentional interference with the bodily integrity of the claimant. The law has developed to replace the traditional distinction between direct and indirect force and replace it with a distinction between intentional application of force and negligent application of force.

In the case of Letang v Cooper (1965) a woman was sunbathing in the grounds of a hotel near to where cars were parked. The defendant reversed his car, having not seen the woman, over her legs and caused injury to her. While there was no intention to hurt her, there was direct harm caused by the negligence of the defendant. Her claim did not succeed because it fell outside the limitation period for negligence claims, which is three years, but nonetheless Lord Denning felt that there was no overlap between trespass and negligence, whereas Lord Diplock felt that there could be.

In the past, the courts have taken a liberal view of what is and what is not direct force in order to ensure that a defendant who appears culpable is also liable. In Scott v Shepherd (1773) the defendant was found liable for battery when he had thrown a lighted firework into a market. The firework had then been picked up and thrown by two further people before it exploded near to Scott, which injured him.

There are cases where the force was indirect rather than direct but liability was still imposed. In the case of Gibbons v Pepper (1695) a horse was whipped so that it bolted. It then ran down the claimant, therefore the defendant who had whipped the horse was found liable for the injuries in battery.

Hostility is a fairly recent requirement of the tort and has been a recent focus because of some of the difficult circumstances in which a judge may be required to determine whether or not there is a battery. In the case of Wilson v Pringle (1987) the claimant, a boy of the age of thirteen, suffered injuries to his hip when a school friend played a practical joke on him. The court, referring to Cole v Turner, held that hostility was a necessary element of an actionable battery. This seems to be out of step with the previous presumption that subject to the daily brushes of life, any intentional unwanted contact could amount to a battery. It also seems to be at odds with certain established practices in specific circumstances.

In the case of Collins v Wilcock (1984) a police officer was held to be liable for battery when she took hold of the arm of a suspect but did not arrest her. Lord Goff felt here that the appropriate test was whether or not the contact was acceptable within the conduct of ordinary daily life.

Medical treatment is a more difficult area. With a few exceptions, it mostly depends on the consent of the claimant. In the case of Re F (1990) a woman in a mental institution with a very young mental age had become sexually active with another patient and the doctors applied for a compulsory sterilisation due to the fact that other forms of contraception were considered unacceptable in the circumstances. The treatment, although without the consent of the patient, was allowed because it was in the best interests of the patient, but Lord Goff confirmed that in the case of a competent adult the treatment would be battery without the consent of the patient.

A competent adult patient can also refuse medical treatment even if this refusal would result in death. To treat following a refusal would constitute a battery. In the case of Re T (1992) the claimant was injured in a car crash and needed a blood transfusion. She refused the transfusion on religious grounds but the Court of Appeal accepted that she was delirious at the time of refusal and was acting under the influence of her mother, therefore doctors acted in her best interests in giving her the transfusion. Provided that these rules are applied exactly and fit the situation, there will be guaranteed 100 percent compensation.