P stated that D shot at him, but gave no evidence that it was intentional or negligent and D claimed no cause of action. Diplock J held that that trespass to the person did not lie if the injury to the plaintiff was caused unintentionally and without negligence. If negligence was a necessary ingredient of unintentional trespass only where the circumstances showed that the plaintiff had taken upon himself the risk of inevitable injury, the plaintiff today must be considered as taking upon himself such a risk arising from any acts of his neighbour which, in the absence of damage to the plaintiff, would not in themselves be unlawful. The onus of proving negligence, where the trespass was not intentional, lay upon the plaintiff.
