Concept And Application Of Trespass To Persons: Assault And Battery

Assault

Discuss about the Concept and Application of Practical.

Trespass to persons means directly interfering with the liberty of an individual or intentional interference with a person’s body without has been granted the permission or authority do so. This violation of the right of a person falls within the jurisdiction of the king’s court and henceforth there are allegations that the trespass was indeed committed.

Irrespective of whether there is truth in the matter in the facts the proprietary is supposed to be observed as having brought the action to the court for settlement of the dispute. Forms of trespass to a person generally are divided into three, these are: assault, battery and false imprisonment. However the wrong purported to have been committed must be in a direct means in such a way that the jury will be able to reach the judgment of the actions with ease and place penalties and sue for damages where necessary.

The invaded interest of a particular person with prove and justification can serve as the basis upon which the court can sue the plaintiff on final judgment as there exists prove of justification. If the invasion was indirect in nature there could not be any liability to the protected interest because there was no ill intention.

The principle of tort can be united together with the concept of assault and battery when discussing law of persons to base the idea that recovery of compensation for the suffering party. The third party may also be liable in the circumstances where delegation took place or administering of interest or estate of a deceased person. The term tort is a civil wrong which constitutes offences that have been committed and causes injury to another person. However the plaintiff is not the only one who is liable hence there is fair consideration where the defendant is seen to act unlawfully. The law of persons makes sure that recognition of the fact that both parties are subject to the jurisdiction under the court of law subsidiary civil law.

The torts are actionable per se which means they can be applied without prove of action in order to protect the civil rights against violation. The most basic wrong such as using the finger print without consentient from the owner constitutes a tort actionable in order to protect the dignity of the person even though no physical damage that occurred. Trespass to a person is

Battery

Classification as torts, in these scenario criminal proceedings may be conducted against the offender to bring upon compensation for the affected party. An assault is a threat or an attempt to do harm to another person accompanied with intention to perform the malicious damage to another human. The act may demoralize the person either in the organization and working environment or a mere comment. The signs of the assault are messages formally and verbally to a person threatening the enjoyment of aright without any justifiable grounds. The assault is the action of defendant which causes apprehension which is reasonable of the infliction.

Battery on the other hand occurs when there is contact with the other person in a physical form and hurting in a way those sensory nerves detects pain on the body. Holding hand upwards against another person in a threatening way that leads to even screams from the frightened person contributes to an assault. Heilman (2001) “Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. The assault comes before battery but in circumstances where there is unseen assailant the assault can identified in any dimension provided the verbal took place to the inflicted and apprehension can be justified henceforth.

Telephone conversation to another with threats which are indiscipline in nature can be termed as an assault. Accomplishment of a battery cannot take place without physical contact taking place hence it will be only a mere assault until the defendant makes the move.  Spitting on the face of another human being where the mucus heavily lands on him with a thud amounts to a battery. Holding another person by the collar and pulling him towards the opposing direction constitutes to battery and this especially occurs in many homesteads where the defendants takes it lightly and says that they only held the cloth without touching the body. In Thomas vs. Num (1985) the complainants were members of a union of mineworkers. In 1984 the commissioning branch head which controlled the miners and the entire union decided to go on strike and thus formed an industrial action. The plaintiff unlike the expectations of the leaders of the union did not take part in the strike since they resisted. They embarked on their work while the rest were involved in the unrest.

The branch did not take it lightly and they abused and used violence to the plaintiff to an extent that made police to be involved. The plaintiff did not just keep quiet and they proceeded with placing injunctions against the branch, its officials and trustees. In this case picketing of the colliery gates was an actionable tort which amounts to a civil wrong. Intimidation of other people and blocking even the roads accessed by these miners was also present in complains that were brought forward.

Case Scenario

Obstruction and unlawful interference is another matter that was given the priority criminal offences act. However it was held that picketing did not amount to wrong since it was an offence under section seven. Picketing of the gates was not actionable because it caused no special damage since pickets were held back from the vehicles in a separate place entirely from the working miners. The plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt and thus picketing could not be a point of discussion as long as the complainant used the same grounds hence they were not torturous. Mass picketing is common law nuisance hence the defendants are entitled to immunity from this offence. Lee (2007) “Gender effects and investor reactions to the announcements of top executive appointments”.

The judge dismissed the plaintiff application since there were no any arguable cases to be used as a reference for implementation of the law of persons against the defendant. The plaintiff lost the case and he was not to commence any further legal hearing from the moment jury was reached as not guilty. Grandly (2007) said “the framing of female executive profiles in Canadian business”.

The case of Amanda Lang made the news in Canada where the star was caught up in conflict of interest by the CBS. The scandal entailed working on behalf of the Royal bank of Canada in the year 2015, this action by Lang made other journalist furious and their intention to sue their partner was witnessed by their unfriendly actions. McNish (2011) “Quiet revolution that Report on Business”.

Kathy who was among the reporters who let the cat out of the bag about the story bravely spoke and portrayed the actions of the journalist were not in line with the accepted code of conduct. She argued that CBs had refused to answer the questions that she asked and also did not get any response from Lang and instead she continues to pursue her dream career despite the allegations that were raised against her.

The issue if trust emancipated in this case because Amanda was not in a position to be entrusted property or exercise of other rights while in the company premises. The illusion of neutrality is the major cause of rotten journalism in Canada hence the politics interference by the nationalists perceives the idea in another dimension. Mc Elgunn (2009)” Canada’s entrepreneurs and the turbulencs faced in investments of the decade”. The background research found out that the Central bank of Canada had been cruel back in the year 2013 hence any reporter who justified the situations and the liable party in present could sue for damages. Koller (2004) “Businesswomen and war metaphors: ‘Possessive, jealous and pugnacious”.

Amanda had received payment from the Royal bank of Canada amounting to $ 15000 in order to represent the bank at a conference in the event that was held to make the bank appear on top of other banking institutions. When interviewed by the chief executive of the bank she termed the story as unfair and discriminates against her enjoyment to the title of the journalist

In Amanda Lang case the defendant is herself against the large media and the reporter Kathy Tomlinson is the complainant or rather the plaintiff. The reporter spots out that there is conflict of interest between the bank and Amanda and thus the law of persons is applied to sue for any verbal harm of words spoken at the conference. The cruel practice that the bank was undertaking in order to benefit in a selfish way was manipulation of power. Ebner (2011) “Printing money and report on business is a lawful act by the bank officials”.

The employees of the bank were in a position to identify the fault practices but failed to raise their grievances to the media in fear of losing their jobs. The security of their job would be compromised if at all the workers attempted to speak ill about the operations of the bank. The plaintiff is the reporter who represents the voices of the minority in the society and the infliction of their rights. The reporter has the authority to raise concern as the institution is public and the regulations that are supposed to be complied with are not followed. Kingston (2005) “the claims why women can’t get ahead in the globe and mail”. The defendant on the other hand has the defense in that she could say that she acted in good faith without any knowledge of the malicious act by the bank to exercise its monopoly power in a negative manner. She used the defense that only the required information that was spoken and hence she did not add her own message to the media.

The court of law can allow her to place the blame on Royal bank of Canada where Amanda Lang can act safely and also sue the bank for trespass into her rights under the law of persons. The defamation of the content that she gave out at the convention could cause her imprisonment hence the bank is liable and sue for damages. Alice (2002) “argues the role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders in Psychological Review”.

There is conflict with media by Leslie Roberts who resigned from the global television following the allegations that he owned part of the public relation firm. Global was in consent that Robert owned part of the company where it was a show. Gill (2007) said “there is relationship between gender and the media”. 

Journalist were not supposed to be entitle to any ownership of the named communication firms in which they intentionally promote those interests of the persons clients rather than the legitimate new stories. The accused person was the journalist by the name of Robert who engaged in conflict of interest. Global News was within its legal and also the professionalism rights and the upheld duties forced terminate Roberts from the show. He was entitled to zero influence over how stories were aired. Hewlett (2005) “Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women on the road to success”.

Kashif Khan, co-founder of the company and the managing director gave out the statement that demoted Robert from the position that he held in the company. The issue of public relations is on the rise where neither Mr. Khan nor Robert follows the professional code of conduct and th ethics that govern how the journalist should behave in such a scenario. Mr. Khan is not capable of suing Robert because the profession that he has been trained for is that of an auctioneer. The seller of diamonds as he is being referred by the writers in Canada lacks the core skills.

He was also in the danger of being fired and removed by the vote of no confidence by the committee that constituted the watchdogs of the company and majority shareholders. The case is a difficult scenario since under the circumstances that the plaintiff was not qualified to sue Robert. Dias (2009) claims Good medicine in financial Post Magazine should be emphasized”. There is fact that the managing director is also liable. Heldman (2009) “Sexism in media coverage of vice presidential candidates and the Social Science”. There is incompetency and misleading the company members and the shareholders that Robert was the right employee for the job can Place him in controversy and also be sued for damages and breach of the contract.  The complainant is Khan the senior most manager of the company that owns the show. Johnston (2003)” Undermining mothers content analysis of the representation of mothers in magazines”. He takes the necessary step of firing the employee who has been engaging in malpractices. Linda (2002)” Re-presenting women executives: Valorization and de revalorization in US”.

Conclusion

The defendant is Robert who have committed the crime as under the law of persons he has used the words to refer to his own clients as potential and worthy instead of complying and working to the best interest of the company. He is thus liable for the loss incurred and thus the court can fine the person or issue judgment for imprisonment to serve a term not exceeding ten years. The role assigned to him was so sensitive because he acted as the marketer to the outsiders who were interested in carrying business with the company. DeCloet (2009) said that “Robert Milton has a lot of baggage that report on Business”.

This amount to bleach of duty and deviating from the main responsibilities to suit own self. The court of law can also place a ruling that will affect Khan who knowingly conducted the activities of hiring the incompetent staff. McCullough (2010) “The Gen-X CEO takes his leave in Canadian Busines”.

Given the fact that he was regarded as an auctioneer he has no authority to place blame on others where the company failed to reach the target. He is liable under the law of tort for the civil wrong of other members who trusted him of being capable to run the company affairs.

References

DeCloet, R. (2009). Robert Milton has a lot of baggage that report on Business. Times press: Canada, https://search.proquest.com/docview/194550888 [December 17, 2012].  

Dias, D. (2009). Good medicine in financial Post Magazine. Augean press: Germany.

Alice, H., & Steven, J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders in Psychological Review. Hungarian press: Australia.

Ebner, D. (2011). Printing money and report on business. Lite press: USA. https://search.proquest.com/docview/858415439 [December 17, 2012].  

Gill, R. (2007). Gender and the media. Polity Press: United Kingdom.

Grandy, Karen. (2011, June). The framing of female executive profiles in Canadian business magazines. Canadian press. New York.

Heilman, E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.

Heldman, C. (2009). Sexism in media coverage of vice presidential candidates and the Social Science Research Network. Cadbury press: Britain.  https://ssrn.com/abstract=1459865 [March 13, 2013].

Hewlett, S., & Luce, C. (2005). Off-ramps and on-ramps: Keeping talented women on the road to success. Journal; of Harvard Business Review, 83, 43–54.

Johnston, D., & Swanson, H. (2003). Undermining mothers content analysis of the representation of mothers in magazines. Journal mass Communication and Society, 6(3), 243–265.

Kingston, A. (2005). Why women can’t get ahead in the globe and mail. Canadian press: New York.

Koller, V. (2004). Businesswomen and war metaphors: ‘Possessive, jealous and pugnacious Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(1), 3–22.

Linda A. (2002). Re-presenting women executives: Valorization and de revalorization in US business press. Journal of Women in Management Review, 17(3/4), 104–119.

Lee, P., & James, E. (2007). Gender effects and investor reactions to the announcements of top executive appointments. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 227–241.

McCullough, M. (2010). The Gen-X CEO takes his leave in Canadian Business, https://search.proquest.com/docview/89199084 [December 17, 2012].  

McElgunn, J., & Shiffman, K. (2009). Canada’s entrepreneurs of the decade. American press:New York. https://search.proquest.com/docview/219297153 [December 17, 2012].  

McNish, J. (2011). Quiet revolution that Report on Business. Austria press: Australia.