... case outwith the context of 'by force of arms'. This practice developed further and the courts began to recognise that trespass to the person was more complex in nature. As far back as 16171 the court is enquiring whether acts have been negligent. Unfortunately change was slow, as evidenced in Scott v. Shepherd2, where the majority were satisfied to consider whether the defendant's act was simply lawful or unlawful. Notably in this case Blackstone J (dissenting) preferred to look at whether the defendant's act was direct or indirect. Was this rationale the beginnings of a change? It is unclear where or when the tort of trespass began to split the classification of the invasion to the person, but it did inevitably happen. The position was that where there was a direct invasion the action lay in trespass and where the invasion was an indirect or consequential invasion the action lay in ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now