Tort Law

Fowler v. Lanning

[1959] 1 QB 426

Citation: [1959] 1 QB 426
Court: Queen’s Bench Division, High Court
Date: 19 Dec 1958
Bench: Diplock J

Facts

• The claimant, Fowler, commenced an action for trespass to the person against the defendant, Lanning.
• Fowler’s statement of claim was extremely brief. It stated, in substance, that on a specified date and at a specified place, “the defendant shot the plaintiff.”
• Fowler did not state whether Lanning had:
o deliberately aimed and fired at him;
o carelessly discharged the weapon; or
o caused the shooting through a completely unavoidable accident.
• No facts showing negligence were included in the pleading.
• Lanning challenged the statement of claim on the ground that the bare allegation that he had shot Fowler did not disclose a complete legal cause of action.
• The matter therefore came before Diplock J at a preliminary stage. The court was not deciding after a trial whether Lanning had actually acted intentionally or negligently. It was deciding what Fowler was required to allege before the claim could proceed.

Issue

• Whether the bare allegation that “the defendant shot the plaintiff” was sufficient to establish trespass to the person.
• Whether a claimant relying on an unintentional physical injury must plead and prove negligence.
• Whether the defendant bears the burden of disproving fault merely because the injury resulted directly from his act.

Rule

• Trespass to the person does not impose liability for every direct physical injury.
• A claimant must show that the interference was either:
o intentional; or
o caused by the defendant’s negligence.
• If the claimant relies on intention, the pleading must clearly allege intentional physical interference.
• If the claimant relies on negligence, the pleading must state the material facts showing how the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care.
• Where an injury is unintentional, the claimant bears the burden of proving negligence.
• An unintended and non-negligent accident is not actionable merely because the defendant’s act directly caused bodily contact.

Application

• The sentence “the defendant shot the plaintiff” described the physical event but did not identify the legal basis of responsibility.
• A shooting may occur in several legally different ways:
o the defendant may deliberately fire at the claimant, amounting to battery;
o the defendant may fire carelessly, creating liability in negligence; or
o a projectile may strike the claimant through an unavoidable accident despite reasonable precautions.
• Liability could not be determined merely from the fact that the injury was caused directly by a bullet discharged from Lanning’s gun.
• Fowler’s pleading did not allege that Lanning intended to shoot him. It therefore did not properly disclose an intentional battery.
• It also did not specify any negligent conduct, such as:
o firing without checking where Fowler was standing;
o failing to handle the weapon safely;
o aiming carelessly; or
o discharging the gun in circumstances creating an unreasonable danger.
• The court rejected the older idea that directness alone automatically shifted the burden to the defendant to prove that the incident was inevitable.
• Fowler had to identify the fault on which he relied. Requiring this did not impose an unreasonable technicality; it informed Lanning of the case he had to answer.
• The judgment accordingly connected substantive tort law with proper pleading. A claimant cannot avoid proving the mental or fault element by describing only the resulting physical contact.
• The principle was later approved in Letang v. Cooper, which went further by confirming that unintended personal injury should be treated as negligence rather than trespass.

Conclusion

• Diplock J held that the original statement of claim did not disclose a sufficient cause of action.
• The allegation that Lanning shot Fowler was incomplete because it did not state whether the shooting was intentional or negligent.
• Fowler was required to provide the necessary particulars or amend the pleading to identify the legal fault alleged.
• If the shooting was intentional, the claim could proceed as battery.
• If it was unintentional, Fowler had to allege and prove negligence.
• If the shooting was both unintentional and non-negligent, no tort liability would arise.