Cole v Turner
Case Brief: Cole v Turner (1704)
1. Facts:
This is a very old English case from 1704, often cited in tort law.
The case involved a dispute about whether certain physical contact amounted to a battery.
The facts centered on a situation where one person touched another, and the question was whether this contact was legally actionable as battery.
2. Legal Issue:
What constitutes battery in the eyes of law?
Specifically, the case sought to clarify what kind of physical contact counts as battery.
The court examined the degree and nature of contact required to qualify as a battery.
3. Judgment:
The court gave a famous definition of battery.
It held that “the least touching of another in anger is a battery.”
However, mere touching that is insignificant or trivial and without hostile intent does not amount to battery.
The ruling emphasized that battery requires hostile or unlawful physical contact, not just any contact.
It distinguished between innocent contact and battery, focusing on the intention and the quality of the contact.
4. Legal Principle Established:
Battery involves intentional and unlawful physical contact or touching of another person.
The degree of contact can be minimal, but it must be done with hostile or wrongful intent.
Innocent or socially acceptable contact (like a tap on the shoulder) does not amount to battery.
The case is foundational for understanding the tort of battery in common law.
5. Significance:
Cole v Turner remains a key authority in defining battery in tort law.
It helps courts distinguish between torts and non-torts in cases of physical contact.
The case is often cited in law textbooks and court rulings when discussing assault and battery.
It shapes how courts approach intent and harmful contact in personal injury claims.
6. Summary:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cole v Turner (1704) |
| Legal Issue | Definition and scope of battery |
| Key Principle | “The least touching of another in anger is battery.” |
| Outcome | Battery requires intentional and hostile contact; trivial contact is not battery |
RELATED Blog
0 comments