Trespass Case Analysis

1753 Words8 Pages
The Tort of trespass has changed its dimensions since its inception. As yet nothing has been said of trespass to the person. The origin of this phase of trespass is no more to be sought in the appeal of felony than is that of trespass q.c.f. or of trespass d.b.a. Even the distinguish- ing allegation in this particular action of trespass, namely that defendant "assaulted, beat, wounded and maltreated" plaintiff (insultutm fecit et ipsum verberavit vulneravit et mtale tractavit) is looked for in vain in the early appeals. Actually, the phrase is the result of a development that spreads over a considerable period of time, affects both the civil actions and the appeals-the former more than the latter-and becomes a set form only in trespass The…show more content…
“Subsequent Development” has lead to further limitation. If the invasion unintended, though direct and resulting from a positive act, there will be no liability if the conduct of the defendant was reasonable or even if unreasonable, if the consequence was unforeseeable. Reference has been made to the decisions namely “Fowler v. Lanning” and “Letang v. Cooper”. In the former case, the plaintiff claimed damages for trespass to the person and the statement of the claim alleged that “the defendant shot the plaintiff” on a particular date and on a particular place. In holding that the statement of the claim did not disclose a cause of action, the learned Judge held that trespass does not lie if the injury to the plaintiff, although the direct consequences of the act of the defendant was caused unintentionally and without negligence on his part, that the onus of proving intention or negligence lies on the plaintiff and that he must allege either intention on the part of the defendant, or, if he relies upon the negligence, he must state the facts which he alleges constitute

More about Trespass Case Analysis

Open Document