Intentional Infliction of Harm

Requirements of the Action

There are three elements to establishing the tort of intentional infliction of harm. The claimant must show that: Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57

The defendant acted in a way which was extreme, outrageous or unjustifiable;
The defendant intended to cause emotional distress;
The defendant’s actions caused the claimant to suffer physical injury or a clinically-recognised psychiatric disorder or illness.

Outrageous Behaviour

The first requirement is a high threshold. It is not enough that the defendant’s behaviour is offensive or shocking. It must be ‘unambiguously socially unacceptable’, with no ‘justification or reasonable excuse’: Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32.

The fact that the statement is true is a strong indicator that there is a justification or reasonable excuse to state it: see Lord Neuberger in Rhodes.

Intention

The defendant must have fully and subjectively intended the distress. It is not enough that he merely foresaw a risk that his actions might cause distress or that distress was objectively likely to happen: Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32.

Psychiatric Illness

Generally, the courts do not allow recovery in tort for mere emotional distress, a rule which apparently applies here: Wainwright v Home Office [2004] 2 AC 406 (HL). However, Lord Neuberger in Rhodes argued obiter that mere distress should be actionable.

The defendant does not have to intend to inflict psychiatric illness: he must only intend ‘severe’ or ‘significant’ distress: Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32.

A Fourth Requirement?

Speaking obiter in the Supreme Court decision in Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32, Lord Neuberger (with whom Lord Wilson agreed) stated that there was an additional requirement that the defendant’s behaviour must have been directed at the claimant, or a small group of people. He argued that statements directed at large groups or the public at large should not be actionable. This requirement has not been echoed by any other cases, however.

Personal Torts Quiz

Test yourself on the principles of the torts against the person - assault, battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of harm.

1 / 21

The police may normally rely on their powers of arrest and stops as a defence to a personal interference tort claim. When is this not the case?

With respect to the tort of assault

Where their actions are completely outside the lawful scope of the power

Where they have used their powers in an unlawful manner

There are no circumstances in which these powers are not a defence

2 / 21

Does the claimant need to be aware they are being detained to establish the tort of false imprisonment?

Authority is conflicted

Yes

3 / 21

What state of mind must the defendant possess before a claimant can establish the tort of false imprisonment?

Intention to detain

Intention to detain of subjective foresight of detention

Intention to detain or that detention was objectively foreseeable

4 / 21

When is an adult competent to give consent to an action which would otherwise constitute a personal interference tort?

If they understand the what the act is and its purpose and consequences and have been informed of all material risks

If they understand the what the act is and its purpose and consequences

If they understand the what the act is and its purpose and consequences and have sufficient exposure to other worldviews to appreciate moral issues involved

5 / 21

Can a claimant give valid consent to an action which causes actual bodily harm or greater in tort?

Yes, but not if grievous bodily harm is inflicted

Yes, if the force was proportionate to what was expected

Yes

6 / 21

Which of the following three scenarios cannot constitute an assault?

The defendant tells the claimant, in person, "if you do not get out of my way, I will kill you"

The defendant threatens the claimant with a gun, in circumstances where a reasonable person would know it was not loaded

The defendant telephones the claimant, breathing heavily and ominously down the line

The defendant telephones the claimant, remaining silent throughout

The defendant shouts at the claimant from across the street that he is coming to beat him up, but a passing car means that the claimant does not hear

The defendant tells the claimant, in person, "If you were not old, I would thump you"

7 / 21

The claimant moves through a toll booth operated by the defendant. They then decide they want to leave, but the defendant will not let them past unless they pay a small fee. Has the defendant committed the tort of false imprisonment?

Authority is conflicting

Yes

8 / 21

When will the defendant be liable for the tort of false imprisonment as a primary defendant (not vicariously) where the detention was imposed by a third-party?

Where the third-party was acting in the course of their employment for the defendant

Where the defendant subjectively foresaw that the third-party might act on the defendant's instructions

Where the third-party acted as their agent, not exercising independent discretion

Where it was reasonably foreseeable that the third-party might act on the defendant's instructions

9 / 21

When is a child competent to give consent to an action which would otherwise constitute a personal interference tort?

If they understand the what the act is and its purpose and consequences

If they understand the what the act is and its purpose and consequences and have sufficient exposure to other worldviews to appreciate moral and family issues involved

If they understand the what the act is and its purpose and consequences and have been informed of all material risks

10 / 21

What must the claimant show to establish the tort of assault?

That the defendant acted in a way which caused the claimant to apprehend an imminent battery

That the defendant touched the claimant intentionally or recklessly and with hostility

That the defendant touched the claimant intentionally, directly and with hostility

That the defendant acted in a way which reasonably caused the claimant to apprehend an imminent battery

11 / 21

The claimant has sued the defendant for false imprisonment. They claim that they initially consented to the detention, but later withdrew their consent. The defendant shows that it would be very costly and inconvenient to put this withdrawal of consent into effect. Is the defendant liable for false imprisonment?

12 / 21

A member of the public has the power to enact a citizen's arrest for any offence. True or false?

13 / 21

For the purposes of the tort of battery, has the defendant 'directly' touched the claimant if they do so through an object or by setting a trap to later trigger and touch them?

14 / 21

The defendant performed surgery on the claimant. They first informed the claimant about the nature and purpose of the surgery, but did not inform them of serious risks of injury involved. The claimant agreed to the surgery. The claimant then sues the defendant in the tort of battery, claiming that they did not give valid consent. Is the claimant correct?

15 / 21

In what three situations will the courts label touching as 'hostile' for the purposes of the tort of battery?

The touching was done with anger or ill-will

The defendant did not acquire prior consent for the touching

The defendant exceeded a lawful basis for the touching

The touching was unexpected

The touching causes personal injury

The touching was not acceptable conduct in ordinary daily life

16 / 21

The tort of false imprisonment is actionable per se. True or false?

False

True

17 / 21

If the defendant touches the claimant accidentally but refuses to end the contact when asked, has the defendant committed the tort of battery?

18 / 21

What three elements must a claimant show to establish the tort of intentional infliction of emotional harm?

The claimant suffered a recognised psychiatric illness or disorder

The defendant's actions were extreme, outrageous or unjustifiable

The defendant intended to cause severe or significant distress

The defendant intended to cause severe or significant distress or was subjectively reckless as to that harm

The claimant suffered emotional harm

The defendant intended to cause severe or significant distress or was objectively reckless as to that harm

19 / 21

When determining if the defence of self-defence or defence of others applies in tort, what facts may be taken into account to judge whether the force was necessary?

Any facts the defendant honestly believed

The law is unclear

Any facts the defendant honestly and correctly believed

Any facts the defendant honestly and reasonably believed

20 / 21

For the purposes of the tort of false imprisonment, in which of these scenarios is the claimant 'detained'?

Where the claimant is completely obstructed from leaving an area by any route for a long period of time

Where the claimant is completely obstructed from leaving an area by any route for any period of time

Where the claimant is obstructed from leaving the area by a reasonable route for any period of time

Where the claimant is obstructed from leaving an area by a reasonable route for a long period of time

21 / 21

To establish the tort of battery, what three elements must the claimant show?

That the touching was hostile

That the defendant directly touched them

That the claimant suffered personal injury or property damage

That the touching was significant or substantial

That the defendant intended to touch them or was objectively reckless as to the touching

That the defendant intended to touch them

Your score is

Tort: Intentional Infliction of Harm

Intentional Infliction of Harm

Requirements of the Action

Outrageous Behaviour

Intention

Psychiatric Illness

A Fourth Requirement?

Like this:

Intentional Infliction of Harm

Requirements of the Action

Outrageous Behaviour

Intention

Psychiatric Illness

A Fourth Requirement?

Share this:

Like this: