Composite Negligence
1. Composite Negligence
Definition:
Composite negligence occurs when two or more parties act negligently, and their combined negligence causes harm to a third party. It is essentially joint or concurrent negligence.
Key Points:
Liability may be divided among the negligent parties based on their contribution to the harm.
The court examines the causal link between each party’s negligence and the resulting damage.
Essentials of Composite Negligence
Multiple Negligent Acts: At least two parties must commit negligent acts.
Causal Connection: Each act must contribute, directly or indirectly, to the injury.
Harm or Damage: There must be actual damage to the plaintiff.
Joint or Several Liability: Courts decide whether liability is jointly or severally borne.
Case Law Examples
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks (1856)
Negligence of waterworks combined with extreme frost caused damage. Court held the waterworks liable for failing to exercise reasonable care.
Froom v. Butcher (1976)
In a car accident, multiple negligent acts (driver’s negligence and poor safety precautions by the owner) contributed to injury. Court apportioned damages based on contribution.
Key Takeaway:
Composite negligence allows apportionment of liability where multiple negligent actors contribute to the harm.
2. Difference Between Assault and Battery
Assault and battery are intentional torts, often confused but legally distinct.
| Aspect | Assault | Battery |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | An act causing apprehension or fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact. | Actual physical contact or force applied intentionally without consent. |
| Nature of Act | Mental or apprehensive act. | Physical act. |
| Harm Required | No physical harm needed; fear or apprehension is enough. | Physical harm or contact is required. |
| Intent | Intent to cause apprehension, not necessarily injury. | Intent to cause physical contact or injury. |
| Example | Raising a fist threatening to hit someone. | Actually striking someone with a fist. |
Case Law for Assault
R v. Ireland (1997) – Silent phone calls causing fear were held to constitute assault because they created apprehension of imminent harm.
Case Law for Battery
Cole v. Turner (1704) – Defined battery as “the least touching of another in anger” and held that any unwanted physical contact could amount to battery.
Key Differences Summarized
Assault is apprehension of harm, battery is actual harm.
Assault can exist without touching, battery requires contact.
Both require intent, but the intent is different: fear vs. contact.
✅ Quick Memory Tip:
Assault = Alarm (mental apprehension)
Battery = Blow (physical contact)
RELATED Blog
0 comments