Question 1:
Adam's action of pressing his erect penis on Leah may satisfy the conduct and fault elements of battery.
To satisfy the conduct element of battery, there must be a positive, direct act by the defendant, which must cause unlawful physical contact with the plaintiff. It is likely that a judge would find that Adam’s act was direct; as it directly and immediately occasioned a “prejudice”; and it caused physical contact; since Adam’s penis touched Leah. While ordinary contact part of daily life constitutes a lawful touching, it is unlikely to be found that Adam’s actions constitute such contact. As a result, a judge will likely find that the conduct element of battery is satisfied.
The fault element of battery is satisfied if the defendant intentionally or negligently causes unlawful contact. It will likely be found that Adam intended to commit his act since the train was empty, …show more content…
In regards to consent, there exists an implied consent among members of society as they move in society and “expose themselves to the risk of bodily harm”. However, any action that exceeds the limitation of implied consent is a tortious act. This defence is unavailable as Adam’s action would likely be found to exceed any implied consent Leah had given. Furthermore, there was no explicit consent from Leah.
For self-defence to apply, the Civil Liability Act requires the plaintiff’s action to be unlawful and the defendant’s actions to be necessary and reasonable. This defence is irrelevant and does not apply due to the lack of any initial unlawful act being committed by Leah.
Similarly, the defence of necessity is irrelevant due to the lack of an act by Leah that places any danger to property or person.
Thus, there are no defences available to Adam.
Question 3:
The teenage girls’ (“D”) action of cutting Leah’s hair may satisfy the elements of
Adam's action of pressing his erect penis on Leah may satisfy the conduct and fault elements of battery.
To satisfy the conduct element of battery, there must be a positive, direct act by the defendant, which must cause unlawful physical contact with the plaintiff. It is likely that a judge would find that Adam’s act was direct; as it directly and immediately occasioned a “prejudice”; and it caused physical contact; since Adam’s penis touched Leah. While ordinary contact part of daily life constitutes a lawful touching, it is unlikely to be found that Adam’s actions constitute such contact. As a result, a judge will likely find that the conduct element of battery is satisfied.
The fault element of battery is satisfied if the defendant intentionally or negligently causes unlawful contact. It will likely be found that Adam intended to commit his act since the train was empty, …show more content…
In regards to consent, there exists an implied consent among members of society as they move in society and “expose themselves to the risk of bodily harm”. However, any action that exceeds the limitation of implied consent is a tortious act. This defence is unavailable as Adam’s action would likely be found to exceed any implied consent Leah had given. Furthermore, there was no explicit consent from Leah.
For self-defence to apply, the Civil Liability Act requires the plaintiff’s action to be unlawful and the defendant’s actions to be necessary and reasonable. This defence is irrelevant and does not apply due to the lack of any initial unlawful act being committed by Leah.
Similarly, the defence of necessity is irrelevant due to the lack of an act by Leah that places any danger to property or person.
Thus, there are no defences available to Adam.
Question 3:
The teenage girls’ (“D”) action of cutting Leah’s hair may satisfy the elements of