"Wright, Richard" 02/27/06 1:03 PM >>>
Lewis, for your message and for the Ranson v. Kitner
citation. Phil Lister wrote to me that he remembers a British
case from his law school days (1967), then just a few years old:
Cooper vs Letang.
you and others have noted, trespass actions in the United States
no longer require direct interference, but they do require intent
(yet are still "strict liability" in the sense of liability
in the absence of [subjective or objective] fault, for the sorts
of cases that we are discussing). On the other hand, although they
are "trespassery torts," actions for trespasses to the
person (assault, battery, false imprisonment) are not referred to
in the United States as trespass actions, but rather by their specific
name (assault, battery, false imprisonment). The only actions still
entitled "trespass" are trespass to land and trespass
there would be clear liability for trespass to person under Canadian
tort law in the hypothetical that I posed of the hiker in the deep
dark woods who sat on, pissed on, or chopped on the sleeping plaintiff
whom the hiker believed was a log, regardless of the reasonableness
of that belief. Right?
result under Canadian tort law in the case in which the defendant
purposefully/knowingly ran over the tumbling box, not knowing that
there was a boy inside the box? The defendant had the purpose/knowledge
of running over (and thus damaging) not only the box but whatever
(if anything) might be in the box. Would this mean that he "intended
the actual physical consequences which constituted the trespass"
and thus would be liable for trespass to the boy's person (battery)?
Or must the defendant have specific knowledge of what is in the
a separate message to me, Robert Stevens argues (continuing, as
he notes, a prior debate between us on proximate cause, remoteness,
extent of responsibility):
running over the box, you are asserting a liberty with respect to
the (property) right to the box. The child's right to bodily safety
is another right altogether. The driver didn't by his actions intend
to assert a liberty with respect to the child's bodily safety, although
the reasonable person would know that there is a slight risk of
someone being inside."
seems to me that the driver is asserting a liberty with respect
to not only the box but the contents of the box, whatever they might