From: Ken Oliphant <Ken.Oliphant@bristol.ac.uk>
To: John Goldberg <jgoldberg@law.harvard.edu>
CC: obligations@uwo.ca
Date: 09/11/2015 17:48:13 UTC
Subject: Re: Projecting message onto side of another's building: trespass, nuisance, something else?
On 9 November 2015 at 13:36, John Goldberg <jgoldberg@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
<snip> the draft provisions of the Third Restatement of Torts concerning intentional torts to the person are contemplating inclusion of a separate wrong dubbed "Purposeful Infliction of Bodily Harm."  The provision is precisely meant to capture cases of purposeful physical harms not caused by physical contact.    

So, finally catching up with Wilkinson v Downton (1897) then... :)

(Insofar as the scope of that rule was extended beyond mental injury to physical harms not caused by battery.)