Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer

There are few issues of different law of torts to person in this question namely assault, battery and false imprisonment.

IssueOn the assault law, the issue here is whether threatening words by Sarigala when he shouted Go to hell with you, I am staying here and if you have brains, you will not come over as I have no time to entertain a person like you while waiving his fist would amount to an assault towards Kakacau.

Law and case

The law of assault is defined as threatening words or acts that was aimed to inflict fear of an immediate battery about to be inflicted onto the claimant by the wrongdoer. In order for assault to be established the claimant must prove to the courts several elements; first, the intention of the wrongdoer who must be seen making the threats directly and purposely under his own free will. This is a question of facts looking at the nature of bodily movement and words uttered. Second, the act of threatening made by the wrongdoer would inflict reasonable fear to anyone who is in the same position of the claimant whereby he/she would also feel fear of an immediate battery will be inflicted towards them at any time. Third, the claimant must prove that the wrongdoer must be in the position to carry out his threats that had been made at any time soon after the threats were being made. The said requirements can be seen in the case of Tuberville v Savage [1669] 3 All ER 1303, where the courts was made to ask the same requirements. Here the threat made by Tuberville were indeed real (holding the sword) whereby Tuberville could have carried out his threatening act and injuring Savage, again looking at a reasonable person in the position of Savage would indeed feel fear of an immediate sword injuries, but the court found that there was no intention, as Tubervilles mind did not reflect that he wanted to carry out the threats as his words negative his actions (holding the sword) when he said if not assize-time I would not take those words from you. Therefore there could be no assault.Application

Applying to the above facts of Sarigalas threatening words towards Kakacau, there is the capability of Sarigala to carry out his threats of hitting Kakacau and a reasonable person who is in the position of Kakacau could also reasonably feel fear of an immediate injury of being hit by Sarigala but here the mind of Sarigala did not show that he intended to hit Kakacau as his words of if you have brains, you will not come over as I have no time to entertain a person like you actually negative the intention. He is finding excuse not to carry out his act of hitting trough the words he uttered. It is more of a provocation rather than a threat. Conclusion

Therefore my advice would be that there is no assault made by Sarigala towards Kakacau and if the case goes to court then there is less chance of Sarigala being responsible for his act.

The second area of law would be the law of battery, here there are two issues. First, the act of whether Kakacau grabbing Sarigalas shirt amounts to battery and second, whether Sarigala biting Kakacaus fingers could amount to battery.

The law of battery defines as intentionally and unreasonably touching someone else body or things attached to his body without the other person approval.

Few requirements needed to be established. First, there is intention of the wrongdoer to intentionally and directly touching the body of another. Secondly, there is unreasonable touching of the other persons body. This is seen by the standard of a reasonable man test. Finally the acts of touching do not have the necessary consent by the claimant. In order to look at the requirements it would be the questions of facts from each case.In the case of Tiong Pik Hiong v Wong Siew Gieu [1964] 30 MLJ 181, the same requirements were looked into by the courts in order to establish battery. Here in this case there was clear intention of the wrongdoer to scratch the face of claimant because it was her own willful, direct and intentional act of her own to scratch the face of another. The act of scratching is a kind of touching that is unreasonable by a standard of a reasonable man to inflict physical injury to another. Finally, the claimant here obviously did not consent her face being touched by the wrongdoer. Applying to the first issue, the act of Kakacau grabbing the shirt shows that he had the intention to purposely and directly touching the shirt of Sarigala in an unreasonable and unacceptable manner where Sarigala would not have consented to such an act of somebody grabbing with force his shirt.

Here the requirements are fulfilled that my advice to Sarigala is that he do have good evidence to make Kakacau liable for the act of battery when he grab his shirt.

Applying to the second issue, the act of Sarigala biting the fingers of Kakacau shows that he had the intention to bite the fingers of Kakacau and this was done through his own free will. Biting someone else finger is clearly an act of unreasonable touching by any man standards. Finally the act of being bitten by Sarigala could not have been reasonably consented by Kakacau especially when it result physical injuries.

Therefore my advice to Kakacau is that he also has good evidences to provide the courts in making Sarigala liable for the act of battery against him.

The defense of self-defense could not be successfully used in both situations as there is no valid argument for self-defense to be invoked by both of them. Self-defense is an act of preventing physical injury from occurring to oneself that he has to preempt any act of battery which was about to be inflicted towards him. The rule is that an act of self-defense must not be more than the intended act about to be inflicted towards the claimant. As for Kakacaus act of grabbing Sarigala shirt there is no reasonable reason to say that his act was merely to defend himself as it was just a provocation by Sarigala and was not as an assault as mentioned above.