Cole v. TurneIssue.Under what circumstances and with what mindsets may a touching constitute battery? Synopsis of Rule of Law.The lightest angry touch constitutes battery. A gentle touch made in close quarters with no ill intention is not a battery. A forceful or reckless touch, in close quarters is a battery. 即：• “the least touching of another in anger is a battery”• “if two or more meet in a narrow passage, and without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently, it will be no battery”Key point - the degree of contact is irrelevant: the “least touching” is actionableBut: current rule is that battery doesnot require anger: • Is an unwanted kiss battery? Yes.Shooting a person with the best of intentions? Yes.No anger, no damages, no have to be conscious at the time of the contactCollins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374FACT:A police woman took hold of a woman's arm to stop her walking off when she was questioning her. The woman scratched the police woman and was charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of her duty.Me:thedefendant refused to answer police woman’s question and walked away when police woman persisted to follow herand took hold of her arm to restrain her. The defendant swore at and scratched the officer’s arm, As a result, the D was arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer in the course of her duty.Issue:whether officer can physically hold suspect without arrest?(P3)Holding:officer’ action is unlawful and amounted to a battery since it went beyond the generally acceotable conduct of touching a person to engage his attention. The defendant's action was therefore in self defence and D’s conviction was quashed(撤销).Rule: unless there is an arrest, officer cannot use physical force to hold a suspect, and such force may constitute tort of batterySidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors (1985 HLs)Facts:Claimant suffered persistent pain in her neck, right shoulder, and arms.Claimant consented to the neurosurgeon’s remended treatment of cervical cord depression. Doctor did tell her even if the operation properly performed, risk of disturbing a nerve root/consequences. But doctor not explain the fact that in less than 1% of the cases, the depression treatment caused spinal cord damage, paraplegia. Doctor also not informed the plaintiff that this was an operation of choice or "elective operation“ (she didn’t need to have it)Plaintiff patient developed paraplegia after the spinal operationCasebook:MrsSiddeway suffered persisitent pain in her right arm and shoulder and a surgeon employed by the defendants remended an operation to her spine to which Mrssidawat consented. The operation involved a risk,put at least 1%, of damage to the spine and MrsSidawat was not informed of the risk ,The operation was properly conducted but unfortunately the risk materialized and the clainmanr became severely disabled.She sue the defendants on the groud that surgeon had failed to inform her of riskHeld:dismissing the appeal ,that the defendant were not liable.Rule and notable points of law:Unlike US law, in English law consent not vitiated by the failure of the doctor to give the patient sufficient information before the consent is givenOnly if the consent is obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation it could be said that consent is not a true consent, allow battery Patient’s consent must still be real: to be real patient should be told enough about the treatment to understand what will be done to themCasebook: at the same time the doctor is not entitled to make the final decision with regard to treatment which may have disadvantages or dangers , where the patient’s heath and future are stake ,the patient must make the final decision. Thus, the right to make the final decision and the duty of the doctor to inform the patient if the treatment may have the special disadvantages or dangers go hand in hand.False imprisonment非法监禁: l infliction of bodily restraint, which is not expressly or impliedly authorized by the lawl Any restraint of liberty, and can occur anywhere (not just a prison)l Restraint must be pleteBird v. Jones, 7 Ad. & El. (N.S.) 742, 115 Eng. Rep. 688 (1845).Case Summary为了演出而限制人流—原告强行进去—不让原告进入，但允许原告撤退—不构成非法拘禁Facts: part of Hammersmith Bridge, ordinarily used as a public footway, had been closed for spectators of a boat race. Bird (P) wanted to enter but he was prevented by Jones (D) and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee.Defendants refused to let him go forward but would allow him to retrace his steps. P refused to leaveand was in the enclosure for half hour. Bird sued Jones for false imprisonment.Issue: Can a party be liable for false imprisonment if he only partially restricts the movement of another such that a way out is available?Holding and Rule: No. P could have left but chose not to. D did not totally restrict his movements. 。