Colleagues,

I am not a torts lawyer, but the opening paragraphs of Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police [2020] EWHC 2472 (QB), caught my attention: 

"1. Cheryl Pile brings this appeal to establish the liberty of inebriated English subjects to be allowed to lie undisturbed overnight in their own vomit soaked clothing. Of course, such a right, although perhaps of dubious practical utility, will generally extend to all adults of sound mind who are intoxicated at home. Ms Pile, however, was not at home. She was at a police station in Liverpool having been arrested for the offence of being drunk and disorderly. She had emptied the contents of her stomach all over herself and was too insensible with drink to have much idea of either where she was or what she was doing there. Rather than leave the vulnerable claimant to marinade overnight in her own bodily fluids, four female police officers removed her outer clothing and provided her with a clean dry outfit to wear. The claimant was so drunk that she later had no recollection of these events.

2. It is against this colourful background that she brought a claim against the police in trespass to the person and assault alleging that they should have left her squalidly and unhygienically soaking in vomit. Fortunately, because this appeal will be dismissed, the challenge of assessing damages for this lost opportunity will remain unmet."

Am I wrong to think that Cheryl was a little hard done by on her trespass to person claim?

Peter

Professor Peter Radan,

Honorary Professor, Macquarie University

Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law

BA, LLB, PhD (Syd), Dip Ed (Syd CAE)

Macquarie Law School  

6 First Walk,  

Macquarie University, NSW, 2109

Australia

Email: peter.radan@mq.edu.au

Blog: https://www.allaboutnothing.info