Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Wilson v Pringle

[1986] 2 All ER 440

Case summary last updated at 17/01/2020 20:49 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Wilson v Pringle

P and D, schoolchildren, were engaged in horseplay at school as a result of which P fell and was injured. CA found for D, 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. 

Wilson v Pringle crops up in following areas of law