Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440
Judgement for the case Wilson v Pringle
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff and Defendant, schoolchildren, were engaged in horseplay at school as a result of which Plaintiff fell and was injured.
CA found for Defendant, saying that battery was an intentional and hostile touching of, or contact with, one person by another and an intention to injure the other was not an essential element of the tort; that whether a touching or contact was hostile was a question of fact for the tribunal of fact, and that, since the defendant had not admitted that his act had been hostile, he was not liable.
Hostility is a question of fact for the judge.
For Further Study on Wilson v Pringle
In depth notes with lecturer and textbook comments included as well as ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Criminal law | Offences Against The Person Notes Real Notes (28 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.