| From: | Penelope Watson <penelope.watson@mq.edu.au> |
| To: | Ken Oliphant <Ken.Oliphant@bristol.ac.uk> |
| CC: | John Goldberg <jgoldberg@law.harvard.edu> |
| obligations@uwo.ca | |
| Date: | 09/11/2015 18:12:06 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.)