Torts Affecting the Person — Overview

This is the overview of the first group of specific torts in Law of Torts, Unit 3 — Specific Torts and Motor Vehicle Accidents. It covers the torts that protect the person: body, liberty, mind, and reputation and privacy online. Each tort has its own Note. This post shows how they fit together and how to tell them apart.

The Problem This Topic Solves

A person can be harmed without any damage to property. They can be threatened, struck, locked in a room, prosecuted on a false charge, shocked into illness, or defamed on social media. The law of torts answers each of these with a separate tort, and each has its own essentials, defences and leading cases.

Students often mix these torts up because one incident can involve several of them at once. A guard who grabs a suspected shoplifter and locks him in a room has, on one set of facts, possibly committed battery and false imprisonment. This overview gives a map of the group so that each tort can be identified from the facts before the detailed Note is studied.

The Group at a Glance

The table below compares the five Notes in this group. Assault and battery are covered together in one Note.

Tort	What it protects	Core requirement	Actionable per se?	Leading authority
Assault	Freedom from fear of imminent force	Overt act or gesture, reasonable apprehension, present ability to carry out the threat	Yes	Stephens v. Myers (1830)
Battery	Bodily integrity	Force, however slight, without consent or lawful justification	Yes	Cole v. Turner (1704)
False imprisonment	Personal liberty	Total restraint in every direction without lawful justification	Yes	Bird v. Jones (1845); Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983)
Malicious prosecution	Freedom from abuse of the criminal process	Prosecution by the defendant, favourable termination, no reasonable and probable cause, malice, damage	No — damage must be proved	Pandit Gaya Parshad Tewari v. Bhagat Bhagwan Das (1908)
Nervous shock	Mental and nervous well-being	A genuine physical or psychiatric consequence; for negligence, duty of care, foreseeability and proximity	No	Wilkinson v. Downton (1897); Bourhill v. Young
Digital torts	Reputation and privacy online	An existing tort committed through digital means	Depends on the underlying tort	Puttaswamy (2017); Shreya Singhal (2015)

Assault and Battery

Assault is an act that makes the plaintiff reasonably fear immediate unlawful force. Battery is the actual application of force, however slight, without consent or lawful justification. In Stephens v. Myers (1830), advancing with the intent and the means to strike was held to be assault even though no contact occurred. In Cole v. Turner (1704), the least touching in anger was held to be battery, while incidental non-violent contact is not.

Both torts are actionable per se, so damage need not be proved. The defences are consent, self-defence, parental or lawful correction, necessity and lawful authority, and each is limited by the need for reasonable and proportionate force. The main remedy is damages, with an injunction available for a continuing threat. Criminal liability can run alongside the civil claim. Full study: Assault and Battery.

False Imprisonment

False imprisonment is the total restraint of a person, in every direction, without lawful justification. No physical contact is needed, and the duration does not matter. Bird v. Jones (1845) shows the limit: blocking one route when a reasonable alternative is genuinely open is not false imprisonment. A person can also be liable for procuring someone else's wrongful detention, and not only for detaining the plaintiff personally.

The defences are lawful arrest by an authorised person in the manner the law permits, reasonable and probable cause for a private arrest, genuine consent and necessity. Habeas corpus is the urgent remedy against a present unlawful detention, and damages remain available for the wrong suffered. In Rudal Shah v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court held that Article 32 extends to compensation for violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21. Full study: False Imprisonment.

Malicious Prosecution

Malicious prosecution protects a person against the malicious misuse of the machinery of criminal law. The plaintiff must prove five things, as stated in Pandit Gaya Parshad Tewari v. Bhagat Bhagwan Das (1908): prosecution by the defendant, termination in the plaintiff's favour, absence of reasonable and probable cause, malice, and damage. Reasonable and probable cause is judged objectively. It means an honest belief on reasonable grounds after due inquiry.

Malice and the absence of reasonable cause are separate essentials, and both must be proved, though malice can often be inferred from a complete lack of cause. The action arises only after the earlier prosecution ends in the plaintiff's favour. Unlike false imprisonment, this tort needs proof of the defendant's state of mind and a completed legal proceeding. Full study: Malicious Prosecution.

Nervous Shock

Nervous shock is psychiatric or nervous injury suffered without direct physical impact. Early courts refused recovery for fear of unmanageably wide liability. The position changed once medically provable consequences were recognised. Mere grief or fear, with no diagnosable consequence, is still not actionable.

There are two routes. Intentional infliction is a separate tort: in Wilkinson v. Downton (1897), a false and calculated statement that caused genuine physical or psychiatric harm was held actionable. Negligent infliction needs the ordinary negligence framework of duty of care, foreseeability and proximity, developed in cases such as Bourhill v. Young. Full study: Nervous Shock.

Digital Torts

Digital torts are ordinary torts committed online. India has no single statute for them. Online defamation is treated as libel, and the same act can also be an offence under Section 356 BNS. Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 (Puttaswamy, 2017), so misuse of data and private information is actionable.

Section 43 of the IT Act gives compensation for unauthorised access and damage, and Section 46 provides an Adjudicating Officer. Intermediaries get conditional immunity under Section 79. Under Shreya Singhal (2015), actual knowledge means a court order or government notification, and Section 66A was struck down. Full study: Digital Torts.

How to Tell Them Apart

Start with what was interfered with. If the plaintiff was put in fear, think of assault. If force was applied, think of battery. If the plaintiff was confined, think of false imprisonment. If a criminal case was started, think of malicious prosecution. If the injury is mental, think of nervous shock. If the act happened online, think of digital torts and then identify the underlying tort.

The table below separates the three torts that students confuse most.

Point	Assault	Battery	False imprisonment
What is needed	Fear of imminent force	Actual force applied	Total restraint
Physical contact	Not needed	Needed	Not needed
Damage to prove	None (actionable per se)	None (actionable per se)	None (actionable per se)
Typical example	Raising a knife and lunging	Striking with the knife	Locking someone in a room

Must Know

Assault, battery and false imprisonment are actionable per se. Malicious prosecution and nervous shock need proof of damage.
Assault protects against apprehension of force. Battery protects against the force itself.
False imprisonment needs total restraint. Blocking one route when another is open is not enough (Bird v. Jones).
Malicious prosecution has five essentials, and malice is separate from the absence of reasonable cause.
Nervous shock can be intentional (Wilkinson v. Downton) or negligent (duty of care, foreseeability, proximity).
Digital torts are existing torts committed online. A platform is not always liable for user posts, because Section 79 gives conditional safe harbour.

Should Know

The same incident can support several claims at once, and a criminal case can run in parallel with the civil claim.
In Indian law, the plaintiff's awareness of the confinement is not treated as essential in false imprisonment, though English law has debated the point.
Rudal Shah is the usual authority for compensation under Article 32 when personal liberty is violated.

A Practical Example

A security guard suspects X of shoplifting. He grabs X by the arm and pushes X into a storeroom, locks the door and tells X that he cannot leave until the police arrive. After an hour he releases X. Grabbing X is battery. Locking X in is false imprisonment, because X was totally restrained. Neither claim needs proof of damage.

The guard then files a complaint against X that he knows to be false, out of personal dislike. X is tried and acquitted. X can now sue for malicious prosecution, because the case ended in X's favour and malice and the lack of reasonable cause can be shown. If X also develops a diagnosed psychiatric illness from the ordeal, a claim for nervous shock may be considered, subject to the rules in that Note.

Quick Revision Points

The person-based torts are assault, battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, nervous shock and digital torts.
Assault, battery and false imprisonment: actionable per se. Malicious prosecution and nervous shock: damage must be proved.
Stephens v. Myers (1830): advancing with intent and means to strike is assault. Cole v. Turner (1704): the least touching in anger is battery.
Bird v. Jones (1845): partial obstruction with a reasonable alternative open is not false imprisonment. Rudal Shah (1983): compensation under Article 32.
Malicious prosecution: five essentials from Pandit Gaya Parshad Tewari (1908).
Wilkinson v. Downton (1897): intentional nervous shock. Negligent shock needs duty of care, foreseeability and proximity.
Digital torts: Section 356 BNS; Puttaswamy (2017); Section 79 safe harbour; Shreya Singhal (2015).