From the set of facts the area of law is the tort of Battery.

For the plaintiff to succeed with an action in this tort he must prove the following;

Direct act of the defendant; plaintiff must show that it was an immediate act of the defendant. This doesn’t deal with lawfulness or unlawfulness. Directness does not include direction (Scott v Shepherd) (Leame v Bray) (Miller v AG)

Voluntary act of the defendant; the plaintiff must prove that defendant was in control of the act. This does not include willingness(Gibbons v Pepper)

Intentional or negligent act of the defendant; the plaintiff must show that it was the deliberate or reckless/inadvertent act of the defendant. (Stanley v Powell) (Miller v AG) (Fowler v Lanning)

Physical contact with the person of the plaintiff; the plaintiff must show that the defendant established contact with him by his person or through an instrument. (Dumbell v Roberts) (R v cotesworth) (Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner)

Lack of consent; plaintiff must prove that he/she did not consent to the contact. This can be established in 3 ways

Express consent; plaintiff must prove that he did not agree expressly to submit to the contact. (Christopher v Bare) (Nash v Sheen)

Presumption of consent; plaintiff must prove there was no presumed consent. (per Holt CJ, Cole v Turner)

Privileged contact; this is determined by looking at the nature of the act and the intention with which the pat was done. (Wiffen v Kincard) (Wilson v Pringle) – where in an action for battery the immediate act of touching alleged does not itself demonstrate hostility, the plaintiff should plead the facts that are said to do so. Although all are entitled to protection from physical molestation in a crowded world, people must be considered as taking on themselves some risk of injury from the acts of others which are not in themselves unlawful.

Positive act and not an omission; plaintiff must prove that it was an affirmative act and not a refusal to act. (Innes v Wylie)

This tort is however actionable per se, which means to succeed the plaintiff does not need to prove damages. (Nsiah v Ampratwum)

Kofi Kumado in introduction to the law of torts in Ghana: the tort of battery is committed by the intentional application of force to another by direct means or through an unwelcome physical contact, irrespective of whether intent to harm or hostility is involved. Thus the tort of battery protects the individual from unpermitted physical contact ELEMENTS

+I of the defendant

The act complained of must be voluntary

State of mind of defendant

There must be physical contact with the person or plaintiff

Lack of consent

Positive act not omission to act