3. Trespass to Goods: This category of trespass, also known as trespass to chattels, specifically addresses the unlawful interference with personal property. It involves the wrongful handling, taking, or damage of someone's goods. Trespass to goods is concerned with both the unlawful deprivation of property from its owner and any harm caused to the property itself. The action can be brought against the individual who wrongfully interfered with the goods or for any damage inflicted on the property.

Depending on the jurisdiction, the legal treatment of trespass can include both civil and criminal remedies. Usually, in civil cases, the concerned party can always claim damages arising from the injury or loss caused by trespass. For criminal cases, sentences may be imposed upon the trespasser if done with malice or against an applicable law.

Trespass to Land – It means interference with the possession of land without lawful justification.

Land: Land encompasses the soil, any fixtures permanently attached to it (such as houses, walls, and poles), as well as the airspace above and the ground below, extending to a reasonable height and depth. The legal maxim “Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum” means that ownership of land includes the space above and below it. However, this does not imply ownership of infinite space but rather signifies that if one owns a portion of the Earth's surface, they also own the space directly above and below that portion, insofar as it can be privately owned.

Trespass: Trespass pertains to a wrongful interference with possession rather than ownership. Thus, an individual in actual possession of land can sue for trespass even if they are not the owner. In the context of land, trespass involves interference with another's possession or enjoyment of their property.

Interference can occur either directly by a person or indirectly through a material object. Examples of trespass include wrongful entry onto land, placing objects on the land, allowing animals to trespass, or remaining on the land after authorization has been revoked.

Unlike nuisance, which involves indirect interference, trespass is a direct interference and actionable per se, meaning that actual damage does not need to be proven. As Winfield noted, “If I plant a tree on your land, that is trespass. However, if the roots or branches of a tree on my land extend into or over your land, that constitutes a nuisance.”

Essentials of Trespass to Land

I. Unauthorized Entry: This includes not only physical entry onto land but also the unauthorized introduction of material objects. In Gregory v. Piper, the defendant’s rubbish on the plaintiff’s property was deemed a trespass. Similarly, in Abdul Gani v. Sadu Ram and Others, the discharge of filthy water from the defendant’s property onto the plaintiff’s land was classified as trespass.

II. Possession of Land: The land must be in the possession of the plaintiff, whether actual or constructive. A servant with constructive possession can exclude others from the property on behalf of their master and can also bring a trespass action. This possession extends to the area above and below the land to a reasonable extent.

Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co (1957) [1957] 2 QB 334 Defendant committed trespass by allowing an advertising board to project eight inches into Plaintiff’s property at ground level and another above ground level. Defendant was held liable.

In Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne (1899) AC 351, the defendant's mining operations extended from their land into the plaintiff's subsoil. This was ruled as trespass to the subsoil. In Bernstein v. Skyviews & General Ltd (1978) QB 479, the plaintiff sued for trespass after the defendants took aerial photographs of his house from hundreds of meters above the ground. The court held that at that altitude, the plaintiff had no reasonable use of the airspace, and therefore, the defendant was not liable for trespass.

III. Entry onto land must be both voluntary and intentional, as trespass to land is an intentional tort. This means that while intent to trespass is not required, the act itself must be deliberate. Lack of knowledge about the trespass does not serve as a defence.

In Basely v. Clarkson (1681) 3 Lev 37, the defendant mistakenly mowed his neighbour's land, believing it was his own. Despite this mistake, the defendant's plea of error did not excuse the trespass because the act of mowing was intentional. The court ruled that involuntary entry does not constitute trespass; thus, if the entry is proven to be unintentional, it is not deemed a trespass.

Trespass to Movable Property

Direct physical interference with movable property in the plaintiff’s possession constitutes trespass to movable property or goods. Any person who has their possession of goods directly interfered with can bring this action, as it is a wrong against the right of possession, whether the possession is physical or constructive. Thus, the person suing does not need to be the owner; the action is based on the infringement of possession.

Armory v. Delamirie (1721) 93 ER 664: In this case, a chimney sweep's boy found a jewel and gave it to a jeweller for valuation. The court held that the boy was entitled to recover the full value of the jewel from the jeweller, even though he was not the owner. It was irrelevant whether the wrong was committed intentionally, negligently, or by an honest mistake.

Kirk v. Gregory (1876) 1 Ex D 55: After A’s death, his sister-in-law moved jewellery from the room where his body lay to another room, mistakenly believing it was necessary for its safety. The jewellery was then stolen from the new location. The executors of A's estate sued, and the sister-in-law was held liable for trespass to the jewellery.

Defences: Lawful justification and inevitable accident are valid defences to the tort of trespass to goods.

The main difference between trespass to Goods and conversion is the degree of interference. Conversion occurs when a person uses or alters a piece of personal property belonging to someone else without the owner’s consent. The degree of interference for conversion must be so serious that the tortfeasor, or person accused of committing the tort, may be required to pay the full value of the property.

ASSAULT

Assault is an act by the defendant that creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant of imminent physical harm. It involves an attempt or threat to use force against another person's body. Even if no physical contact occurs, bringing any object into proximity with someone in a way that causes them to fear immediate harm can constitute assault.

The assault should be intentional

A mere gesture that does not convey an intention to use immediate force does not constitute assault. This is illustrated in the well-known case of Tuberville v. Savage (1669) 1 Mod 3. In this case, the defendant's statement, “Were it not assize time, I’d tell you more of my mind,” made while placing his hand on his sword, was not deemed an assault. The defendant's words indicated that, due to the assize (trial) period when violence was heavily punished, he refrained from using the sword. Essentially, assault involves an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable fear of immediate force, such as threatening to strike with a stick.

Ingredients:

• Making of any gesture or Preparation by an individual within the presence of another.

• Intention or the probability that such gesture or preparation can cause the person to apprehend that the person creating it on the brink to use criminal force on him.

Battery

According to Salmond: “Battery is that the application of force to the person of another with none lawful justification”.

Battery is the completion of an assault and involves the actual application of force. Even a slight touch can constitute battery if it occurs without the individual's consent or lawful justification. The essence of battery lies in the application of force, regardless of the extent of bodily harm.

It is important to note that battery usually occurs without the consent of the injured party. If the person consents to the contact, it generally does not amount to battery. Therefore, a voluntary beating or touch, provided it is consensual, is not considered unjust.

Ingredients:

• Use of Force

• Force should be intentional

• Without lawful justification

Battery, like all actions for trespass, is inherently unjust, even in the absence of physical injury. In the case of Swarup Avatar v. Gabardhan Das AIR 1956, a sixteen-year-old defendant abused the complainant publicly in the presence of a known crowd. Although the defendant's actions did not result in physical injury, they constituted an assault in a manner that was both outrageous and disrespectful to the complainant's dignity. The court found that the insult to the complainant’s dignity warranted exemplary damages. Consequently, the award of Rs. 100 to the complainant was deemed appropriate and just.

Differentiation between Assault and Battery?

To constitute a battery, actual physical contact is required, whether it's a direct application of force or the use of an object. However, for an assault, actual physical contact is not necessary. Instead, it involves creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent force. For example, throwing a stone at someone constitutes an assault, even if the stone does not hit the person. If the stone does make contact, it then constitutes a battery. Similarly, causing a horse to charge towards someone may be an assault, but if the horse actually runs over the person, it becomes a battery.

Mayhem

Mayhem maybe a tort that causes severe injury to the victim in such a way he’s unable to defend himself from the tortfeasor. It’s closely intertwined with assault and battery. While assault refers to the threat of battery, and the battery is the physical usage of force against an individual, Mayhem deals with the disfigurement or loss of any part to physical injury caused by the tortfeasor. The disabling of an arm, hand, finger, leg, foot, or eye are examples of mayhem. To be guilty of the criminal offence, one shall dismember the victim or must assault him so recklessly on creating the danger of dismemberment albeit not meaning to cripple.

Several jurisdictions don’t consider the difference between mayhem and battery, but rather count mayhem as a sort of ‘aggravated battery’ as in developed countries like Japan.

The U.S considers mayhem as a felony. The concept of Mayhem is often understood through subsequent cases –

• In Case Fetter v. Beale (91 Eng. Rep. 1122) – The plaintiff had recovered damages from the defendant for the action of battery. Shortly thereafter, ‘Part of his skull came out of his head due to the said battery’, and therefore the plaintiff brought a subsequent action under mayhem. Through this case, the scope of mayhem was also expanded to the loss of the Skull.

• In Case Garrett v. Taylor (1676) 81 ER 726 – it had been held that a quarryman had an explanation for his action against the defendant which had caused the plaintiff’s customers to discontinue buying the quarried stone by threatening them with ‘mayhem’.

Difference Between Assault, Battery and Mayhem

Assault is an action that causes fear within the mind of the victim that an act of battery is close to taking place; Battery refers to the act of striking someone with physical force and no lawful justification. Mayhem refers to the act of crippling someone and rendering them defenseless. Assault generally refers to only intended to cause harm, whereas both in battery and mayhem, inflict physical injury occurs upon the victim. Assault takes before the crime of battery is committed and mayhem may be a severe sort of battery. These 3 torts are related to one another and form an integral part of criminal and tort law.

False Imprisonment

False imprisonment is a tort claim where an individual asserts that they were unlawfully detained or restricted against their will. To establish a claim for false imprisonment, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally confined them within fixed boundaries, either physically or through threats, without their consent and without legal justification. The plaintiff must also be aware of the confinement or suffer harm as a result.

Defences to a false imprisonment claim include consent, lawful authority (such as by law enforcement), and certain privileges, such as the shopkeeper’s privilege, which permits store owners to detain suspected shoplifters for a reasonable period under specific conditions.

Damages for false imprisonment can encompass compensation for emotional and physical harm, and in egregious cases, punitive damages may be awarded to deter future misconduct. Cases like Bird v. Jones and Woolworths Ltd v. Kelly illustrate how courts evaluate whether the confinement was legally justified and whether the detention was reasonable given the circumstances.

False imprisonment is a legal claim where someone alleges they were unlawfully confined against their will. To prove this, the plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally restricted their freedom of movement within fixed boundaries, without consent and without legal justification. The plaintiff must either be aware of the confinement or suffer harm as a result. Common defences include consent, lawful authority, and shopkeeper’s privilege. Damages can include compensation for harm suffered and, in severe cases, punitive damages to deter future misconduct.

Remedies for the tort of trespass include

1. Re-entry: A property owner has the right to re-enter their premises if trespassed upon, using reasonable force if necessary to remove the intruder. In Hemmings v. Stoke Poges Golf Club (1920) 1 KB 720, it was confirmed that a person forcibly removed from their property can assert this right of re-entry.

2. Action for Ejectment/Expulsion: An individual who is lawfully in possession of immovable property but is dispossessed without legal process can recover the property within six months of dispossession.

3. Action for Mesne Profits: In addition to recovering their property, a dispossessed landowner can claim compensation for losses suffered during the period of dispossession. Mesne profits refer to the earnings or benefits that the trespasser gained from occupying the property.

4. Distress Damage Feasant: This right allows a landowner to seize and detain trespassing livestock or other chattels until compensation for the damage caused is paid.