Tag: Battery

Kaye v Robertson [1990]: Privacy Rights and Media Intrusion

This case, Kaye v Robertson [1990], is about a newspaper secretly entering a hospital room to get photos and an “interview” from an injured actor, raising the issue of privacy. Given below is a summary.

  • Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 16 March 1990
  • Citation: [1990] EWCA Civ 21; Reported as [1991] FSR 62
  • Judges: Glidewell LJ, Bingham LJ, Leggatt LJ
  • Areas of Law: Privacy, Malicious Falsehood, Defamation (Libel), Trespass to the Person (Battery – argued but not established)

Key Case Facts: Kaye v Robertson

In January 1990, Gordon Kaye, a famous TV actor, suffered severe head injuries in a car accident and was recovering in a private hospital room.

Access to his ward was restricted to protect his health.

A journalist and photographer from the Sunday Sport ignored these restrictions, entered his room without permission, spoke to him, and took photos—using flash—while he was mentally impaired and unable to give informed consent.

They intended to publish an “exclusive interview” and photographs.

The High Court granted an injunction to stop the publication. The defendants appealed.

Issues Before the Court of Appeal

Since English law recognized no general right to privacy, Kaye’s lawyers had to rely on existing causes of action. The court considered whether publication could be restrained under:

  • Libel
  • Malicious falsehood
  • Trespass to the person
  • Passing off

Court’s Findings in Kaye v Robertson

The judges said clearly that English law does not give a person a legal right simply to protect their privacy, even though this case shows such a right is badly needed.

Libel: The intended article might be defamatory, but it was not clear enough to justify an emergency (interim) injunction.

Trespass/Battery: The flash photos were upsetting, but there was no clear proof of physical injury. It couldn’t legally count as battery, so no injunction could be based on it.

Passing off: Passing off protects traders and commercial goodwill. Kaye was not acting as a trader selling a product or endorsement. So, this claim failed.

Malicious falsehood: This did work.

The article clearly suggested Kaye had freely agreed to the interview and photos. That was false, and the journalists knew or should have known he couldn’t give real consent. This could cost Kaye money, because other newspapers would have paid a lot for his first true interview later. Damages in these circumstances would not be enough; so, an injunction was justified.

Final Order:

The Court cancelled the very wide earlier injunction that completely banned using the photos and words.

It granted a narrower injunction. The newspaper was not allowed to say or suggest that Kaye had voluntarily agreed to be interviewed or photographed in hospital.

The photos, tapes etc. would be held safely by the defendants’ solicitors and only used in a way that obeyed this injunction.

Why this Case is Important?

It is a famous example showing how badly English law lacked a proper “privacy” right at that time. Judges strongly said this was a “monstrous invasion of privacy,” but they could only act through malicious falsehood, not privacy law.

The judges clearly called on Parliament to create a proper law to protect privacy.

You may refer to the full case judgment here:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1990/21.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Scott v Shepherd (1773): Personal Injury & Causation in Tort Law
Munro v Southern Dairies Ltd [1955]: Private Nuisance

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

Scott v Shepherd (1773): Personal Injury & Causation in Tort Law

Scott v Shepherd (1773) 96 Eng. Rep. 525 (K.B.) — often called the “flying squib” case.

  • Citations: (1773) 96 ER 525; (1773) 2 Wm Bl 892; 3 Wils KB 403
  • Court: Court of King’s Bench (K.B.), England
  • Areas of Law: Trespass to the person (battery), Causation, Intervening acts / novus actus interveniens

Scott v Shepherd is a landmark English torts case about causation and intervening acts. A man threw a lit firework (a “squib”) into a crowded market; others, to save themselves, instinctively tossed it away; it finally exploded and injured the claimant.

Key Facts: Scott v Shepherd

Defendant threw a lit squib into a crowded marketplace.

The squib landed near someone who, to avoid harm, threw it away; it was then picked up and thrown on again by another person.

The squib ultimately exploded near the claimant and injured him.

Question: was the defendant liable for the injury despite the intervening acts of third parties?

The Legal Issue

Whether the voluntary acts of bystanders (who threw the squib on to avoid harm) were novus actus interveniens that broke the causal chain, excusing the defendant.

Judgment & Reasoning in Scott v Shepherd

The court (majority: De Grey CJ, Nares J., and others) found the defendant liable. The bystanders’ acts were seen as involuntary or natural reactions to the danger the defendant created — they were not independent, voluntary, informed interventions breaking causation. The injury was therefore a direct consequence of the defendant’s wrongful act.

An actor who creates a dangerous situation can be liable for consequences even if third parties’ instinctive reactions contribute to the harm, provided those reactions are a natural and foreseeable result of the defendant’s act.

A novus actus interveniens will break the chain only if the intervening act is a free, informed, and voluntary act independent of the defendant’s conduct (i.e., not a predictable or forced reaction).

Blackstone J. dissented on technical grounds about directness/indirectness.

Significance

The case is frequently cited in tort and criminal causation discussions to illustrate when intervening acts do not break causation.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Strong v Woolworths [2012]: Slip and Fall Cases in Australia
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

Day v The Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour [2013]: Dual Liability

The case Day v The Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour Pty Ltd [2013] is a notable decision that revolves around a claim of vicarious liability for an act committed by a security guard.

Ratio Decidendi: The theory of dual vicarious liability (two parties both liable for one tortfeasor) is not recognised in Australian law.

Case Name & Citation: Day v The Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 250; (2013) 85 NSWLR 335
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales – Court of Appeal
Decision Date: 05 August 2013
Judges: Meagher JA, Emmett JA, Leeming JA
Areas of Law: Vicarious Liability, Agent and Independent Contractor, Assault, Battery

Facts

Ms Julia Day was injured at the Ocean Beach Hotel in 2008 when a security guard, employed by Checkmate Security, pulled the stool from beneath her, causing her to fall.

The security guard acted on a direction from the hotel’s manager to remove her from the premises due to intoxication.

Day sued the hotel and its licensee (Karma Elliott-Cosmos), alleging vicarious liability for the guard’s conduct.

Trial Outcome and Appeal

The District Court found the security guard’s conduct constituted assault and battery.

It held that Checkmate, as the guard’s employer, was vicariously liable. The hotel and licensee were not vicariously liable.

Day was awarded $10,000 in total: $2,500 general damages, $2,500 aggravated damages, and $5,000 exemplary damages.

Day appealed.

Court of Appeal Decision (Day v The Ocean Beach Hotel Shellharbour)

The Court held that Checkmate was an independent contractor, not the agent or employee of the hotel or licensee. The Hotel/licensee exercised limited control, not sufficient to establish a relationship of agency or employment.

The security guard’s act was not authorised or directed by the hotel staff. Though an instruction was given to remove Ms Day, it did not amount to authorising the unlawful act (the assault by pulling out the stool).

Leeming JA stated as under:

“The hotelier and staff had general control of security staff such as Mr James but that control was limited to where in the premises they should work and on what task, but in my opinion, not how to do the task. Mr James and other security staff could delegate any tasks which they were asked to do to another guard.” (at p. 8)

“The security guard was not expressly authorised to commit the assault and battery. The findings of the primary judge, that neither the Hotel’s duty manager nor its licensee were on the spot when the incident occurred, and that all that was authorised was the appellant’s removal, were amply open on the evidence.” (at p. 16)

Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle from Oceanic Crest Shipping Co v Pilbara Harbour Services (1986) that two unconnected entities cannot both be vicariously liable for the same act. That is, holding both Checkmate and the hotel/licensee liable was not feasible.

The damages assessment was upheld.

You can refer to the full case here:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2013/250.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co [1957]: Trespass and Property Law
Stanley v Powell (1891): Inevitable Accident in Law

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

Cole v Turner (1704): Defining Battery in Tort Law

Unauthorized physical contact that is accompanied by anger or aggressiveness is punishable. In contrast, incidental or non-aggressive contact in everyday interactions is not regarded a battery. The case of Cole v Turner (1704) is one of the most profound and early decisions in English tort law, particularly in relation to the tort of battery. Given below are the details of the case:

Citation: Cole v Turner (1704) 6 Mod Rep 149; 90 Eng. Rep. 958
Court: Nisi Prius (King’s Bench)
Presiding Judge: Chief Justice Sir John Holt
Legal Focus: Tort of Battery

Facts

The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, alleged that the defendant, Turner, committed battery against them during an encounter in a narrow passage. The central issue was whether the physical contact made by Turner constituted battery under the law.

Legal Issue

The primary question was whether any physical contact, regardless of its nature, might be considered battery, or if an element of aggressiveness or intent was required for such a claim.

Court’s Decision (Cole v Turner)

Chief Justice Holt stated three key principles:

1. Minimal Contact with Anger: Even the slightest touch, if executed in anger, qualifies as battery.

2. Innocuous Contact: A gentle touch without any intent to harm, especially in situations like passing in a narrow passage, does not amount to battery.

3. Aggressive Force: Using force in a rude or excessive manner to push past someone in situations that make avoiding physical contact difficult, or any struggle that could cause harm, constitutes battery.

These principles emphasize that the intent and context of the contact are very important in determining liability for battery.

In the words of the learned judge:

“The least touching of another in anger is a battery. If two or more meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently, it is no battery. If any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude inordinate manner, it is a battery; or any struggle about the passage, to that degree as may do hurt, is a battery.”

List of references:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Rogers v Whitaker (1992): Medical Negligence and Duty to Warn
Trespass to Land: Insights from Newington v Windeyer (1985)

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

Murray v McMurchy [1949]: Informed Consent in Medical Law

Case Name & Citation: Murray v McMurchy [1949] 2 DLR 442

  • Court: British Columbia Supreme Court
  • Judge: Macfarlane J.
  • Decision Date: February 1, 1949

Facts (Murray v McMurchy)

Following extended labour and failed forceps delivery attempts, the plaintiff had a Caesarean section.  During the procedure, the doctor (defendant) identified several fibroid tumours in her uterus.  The doctor tied the plaintiff’s Fallopian tubes (a sterilisation technique) without her prior consent, assuming that a future pregnancy might pose health hazards.  The plaintiff eventually filed a lawsuit seeking damages, saying that the sterilisation was illegal and violated her bodily autonomy.

Key Legal Issue

Was the surgeon legally permitted to execute the sterilisation without the patient’s consent, based on a projected future health risk?

Court’s Reasoning

While the fibroids could pose a future risk, there was no acute & immediate medical issue that required sterilisation during the Caesarean section. The court emphasised the right of patients to agree to medical procedures. Sterilisation decisions must be left to the patient, even if medically advisable. The husband’s signing on a generic consent form did not authorise sterilisation, nor did it relieve the surgeon of the duty to get particular consent. The court recognised that sterilisation deprived the petitioner of a fundamental right—the ability to produce children—without any requirement or emergency.

Judgment in Murray v McMurchy

The sterilization was an unauthorized trespass to the person.

The court awarded $3,000 in damages to the plaintiff.

However, it did not award punitive damages, as the surgeon acted with good intentions, albeit wrongly.

Legal Principle Established

The case of Murray v McMurchy [1949] 2 DLR 442 is a landmark Canadian case that has had a significant impact on the medical fraternity, particularly concerning the intervention of doctors.

Informed consent is required for non-emergency medical procedures, particularly those with lasting repercussions (such as sterilisation). Even if the doctor believes it is in the patient’s best interests, the decision is ultimately up to the patient, unless there is an obvious and imminent emergency.

References:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/1949/1949canlii220/1949canlii220.pdf

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

How Grosse v Purvis Redefined Privacy Law in Australia?
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) with its precedent case

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

How Grosse v Purvis Redefined Privacy Law in Australia?

Case Name: Grosse v Purvis

  • Citation: [2003] QDC 151
  • Court: District Court of Queensland
  • Judge: Senior Judge Skoien
  • Date of Judgment: 16 June 2003
  • Areas of Law: Tort Law,Invasion of Privacy, Harassment / Stalking,Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm, Negligence, Assault and Battery, Trespass and Nuisance

The case Grosse v Purvis [2003] QDC 151 is a landmark decision from the District Court of Queensland, Australia.

What the Case Was About?

Alison Grosse (the plaintiff) sued the defendant, Robert Purvis, for stalking, harassment, breach of privacy, and emotional distress. She alleged that he had been following her around, entering her property without permission, making insulting phone calls, and spreading false rumours about her.

More specifically, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for a range of torts, with the primary focus being the invasion of privacy, along with harassment, stalking, trespass, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Key Facts – Grosse v Purvis

Grosse and Purvis had a brief romantic/sexual relationship in the 1990s.  They had a professional relationship through SCRGAL, a company that helps young people find apprenticeships. 

Grosse alleged that after their personal relationship deteriorated, Purvis gradually began stalking and harassing Grosse, showing up at her house, spying on her, and calling her regularly, often late at night.  He also made false claims about her massage business, implying that it offered sexual services, which she refuted.  Purvis claimed he was attempting to safeguard Grosse’s name, but she felt frightened, emotionally upset, and attempted suicide once as a result of the pressure.

The defendant attempted to justify his actions as concern for her reputation and SCRGAL.

Court Findings

The court accepted Grosse’s account of events over Purvis’s.

It acknowledged that Purvis’s behaviour was intrusive, hostile, and harmful to Grosse’s mental health.

Multiple witnesses corroborated the plaintiff’s claims, and the defendant’s justifications were rejected.

The court recognised the right to privacy as a legal basis, which was a rare and significant development in Australian law at the time.

Result (Grosse v Purvis)

Grosse was awarded $178,000 in damages, including compensatory, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

A permanent injunction was issued, preventing Purvis from contacting or approaching Grosse in any way.

Why This Case Is Important?

It was one of the first instances in Australia to specifically recognise invasion of privacy as a legitimate legal claim. It established a precedent for dealing with stalking and harassment in civil court, beyond just criminal accusations.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/qld/QDC/2003/151.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) with its precedent case
Smith v Jenkins [1970]: Can Criminals Sue for Negligence?

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: Actus Reus

Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1968] EWHC 1 (QB), [1969] 1 QB 439, (1968) 52 Cr App R 700

  • Court: England and Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)
  • Judgment Date: 31 July 1968
  • Judges: Lord Parker C.J., James and Bridge JJ.
  • Area of Law: Criminal Law – Assault and Battery

The case of Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1968] EWHC 1 (QB) is a foundational case in English criminal law, particularly in relation to the concepts of actus reus (the wrongful act of a crime) and mens rea (the mental intention to commit a crime). Here are the key points and principles established by the case.

Facts (Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis)

The appellant, Vincent Martel Fagan, accidentally drove his car onto a police officer’s foot while being directed to park. When the officer told him to remove the car, Fagan refused, used offensive language, and delayed moving the car. The court had to determine whether Fagan’s actions constituted an assault.

Legal Issues

Was the act of driving onto the officer’s foot an assault? – Initially, the act may have been unintentional and lacked mens rea.

Did Fagan’s refusal to move the car transform the situation into an assault? – This required considering whether the act was “continuing” and whether the mens rea could arise during the act.

Key Legal Principles Established (Fagan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis)

Continuing Act Doctrine:

The court distinguished between acts that are complete and those that are continuing. If the actus reus continues, mens rea can be superimposed at any point during the act. In this case, the act of the car wheel being on the officer’s foot was deemed a continuing act. By refusing to remove the car, Fagan formed the necessary intention (mens rea), thus completing the offence.

No Assault from Omission Alone:

The court emphasized that a mere omission (failure to act) cannot constitute an assault. However, Fagan’s conduct was not considered mere omission but rather a continuation of his initial act.

Mens Rea and Actus Reus Coincidence:

For an assault to occur, actus reus and mens rea must coincide. The court found that they did in this case once Fagan knowingly allowed the car to remain on the officer’s foot.

Judgment

Majority Decision:

Fagan’s actions constituted a battery (a form of assault). The act was initially unintentional but became criminal when Fagan chose to let the car remain on the officer’s foot with knowledge of its position.

Appeal dismissed.

Dissenting Opinion (Bridge J.):

Justice Bridge dissented, reasoning that the appellant’s actions after the wheel initially came to rest on the officer’s foot did not constitute an act that could qualify as assault. He viewed the situation as a failure to act rather than a continuing act.

He said:

“After the wheel of the appellant’s car had accidentally come to rest on the constable’s foot, what was it that the appellant did which constituted the act of assault? However the question is approached, the answer I feel obliged to give is: precisely nothing.”

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, and Fagan’s conviction was upheld.

Significance

This case is pivotal in criminal law for illustrating the interplay between actus reus and mens rea in determining liability. It can be cited to illustrate the “continuing act” principle. It beautifully shows how the thin line between accident and offence blurs once intent comes into the picture.

References:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1968/1.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary [1986]
R v Fiak [2005] EWCA Crim 2381 Court of Appeal

MORE FROM CRIMINAL LAW:

Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172: Self-Defence and Battery

Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 is a landmark case in English law that clarifies the definition of battery and the scope of lawful physical contact in daily interactions.

  • Citation: [1984] 1 WLR 1172; [1984] 3 All ER 374
  • Court: England and Wales – High Court (Divisional Court)
  • The learned Judge: Robert Goff LJ
  • Legal Issues: Battery, Assault, Trespass to the Person

Facts of the Case (Collins v Wilcock)

A police officer, suspecting two women of soliciting for prostitution, approached them on the street. One of the women, Ms. Collins, refused to engage with the officer and began to walk away. The officer, in an attempt to stop her, took hold of her arm. Ms. Collins reacted by scratching the officer. She was subsequently charged with assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty.

Legal Issue

Did the police officer commit battery by grabbing Collins’ arm?

Was Collins guilty of assaulting the police officer?

Court’s Decision in Collins v Wilcock

The court held that the officer’s action amounted to a battery, as it exceeded what is generally acceptable in ordinary conduct. Consequently, Ms. Collins’s conviction for assaulting a police officer was quashed, recognizing her right to self-defense against unlawful physical contact. Since the officer was not in the process of lawfully arresting Collins, the contact was not legally justified.

Legal Principles Established

Lord Justice Goff elaborated on the concept of battery, stating that any intentional touching of another person without consent and beyond generally acceptable conduct constitutes a battery. However, he acknowledged implied consent for everyday physical contacts, such as jostling in crowded places or tapping someone on the shoulder to gain attention, provided no more force is used than reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Implications

This case underscores the principle that every individual’s person is inviolable, and any physical contact beyond what is generally acceptable in daily life requires consent. It also delineates the boundaries of lawful conduct for law enforcement officers, emphasizing that actions like restraining individuals without legal justification can amount to battery. Physical restraint by an officer is only lawful when executing a lawful arrest or when justified by specific statutory powers.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Coles Myer Ltd v Webster [2009]: Defamation & Detention
Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1950] on Workplace Negligence

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

Tuberville v Savage (1669): A Historical Legal Case

This case, Tuberville v Savage (1669), is a historic decision from the England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division) addressing the law of assault. Here’s a brief summary of the key points and principles of the case.

Court: King’s Bench Division

Citation: (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3, [1669] EWHC KB J25, 86 ER 684

Parties: Tuberville (plaintiff) vs. Savage (defendant)

Date: 30 January 1669

Type of Action: Assault, battery, and wounding.

Facts (Tuberville v Savage)

The plaintiff allegedly put his hand on his sword and stated, “If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you.” The court examined whether this constituted an assault.

Issue

Does the act of putting a hand on a weapon, accompanied by the statement mentioned, amount to an assault?

Court’s Decision in Tuberville v Savage

The court held that there was no assault. The reasoning was as follows:

1. Intention: For an act to qualify as an assault, there must be an intent to create an apprehension of imminent harm. In this case, the plaintiff explicitly stated that he would not act (“if it were not assize-time”), which negated any immediate threat.

2. Act: The court emphasized that the intention and the act must coincide to constitute an assault. While Tuberville’s actions might have appeared threatening, the accompanying words negated any intent to carry out the threat.

3. Examples in Judgment

•            Striking someone without intent to harm (e.g., in conversation) does not constitute an assault.

•            Threatening actions, such as holding up a hand in a menacing way without any accompanying words, could amount to an assault.

Principle Established

An assault requires both:

1.           An act that creates reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.

2.           An intention to cause such apprehension.

In this case, the plaintiff’s words negated the intent to harm, so no assault occurred.

Significance

This case remains a foundational authority on the law of assault, illustrating how courts evaluate the combination of actions and intent. It is also notable for its contribution to the principle that words can clarify or negate the meaning/intent of actions in legal disputes.

List of references:

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1669/J25.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

State of South Australia v Lampard-Trevorrow [2010] SASC 56
Williams v Milotin [1957] HCA 83; (1957) 97 CLR 465

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

McNamara v Duncan (1971): When a Game Turns into a Legal Battle

Case Name and Citation: McNamara v Duncan (1971) 26 ALR 584

  • Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
  • Date: 6 April 1971
  • The learned Judge: Fox J
  • Areas of Law: Tort Law, Consent and Liability, Negligence, Battery

McNamara v Duncan (1971) 26 ALR 584 is a significant Australian legal case that addressed issues of consent and liability within the context of sports, specifically Australian Rules football.

Facts (McNamara v Duncan)

On September 15, 1968, during an Australian Rules football match, the plaintiff, McNamara, had just kicked the ball when the defendant, Duncan, deliberately struck him on the side of the head with his elbow. This action resulted in a fractured skull, necessitating emergency surgery, leaving McNamara unconscious for ten days, and causing a minor permanent disability.

Legal Issue

The case addressed whether the defendant’s actions could be considered battery, and whether the plaintiff, McNamara, had consented to such contact by virtue of his participation in the game.

Decision of the Court

Fox J. ruled that the blow was intentional and deliberate, and, importantly, it was in contravention of the rules of the game. The Court held that a player participating in a sport like Australian Rules football does not consent to actions that are outside the scope of the game’s rules, even if such contact might sometimes occur within the course of the game. The fact that McNamara knew some level of contact might occur in the game was deemed irrelevant, as the action in question was intentional and illegal according to the rules of the sport.

As a result of this, McNamara was awarded $6,000 in damages.

Reasoning: The Court distinguished between the physical contact typically accepted in the sport and actions that grossly exceed acceptable conduct. It emphasized that consent does not extend to deliberate or intentional acts, especially when such acts are in clear violation of the game’s rules.

Further, while the defendant argued that he did not intend the injury itself, the fact that Duncan meant to strike McNamara was sufficient to establish intent, regardless of whether he foresaw or intended the extent of the harm caused.

Takeaway (McNamara v Duncan)

The key takeaway from this case is that the defense of consent (volenti non fit injuria) does not apply if the physical contact exceeds what is acceptable within the rules of the sport.

While players implicitly accept certain risks inherent to the sport, such as physical contact within the rules, they do not consent to actions that are deliberate and violate the game’s regulations.

References:

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

White v Johnston [2015] NSWCA 18: A Case Analysis
Roy v O’Neill [2020] HCA 45: A Case Summary

MORE FORM TORT LAW: