Thanks for that post Ken. Would v much appreciate any more you or anyone has on Third Restatement. Am working on Wilkinson v Downton. 

Regards

Penelope

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Ken Oliphant <Ken.Oliphant@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

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.)

--

 

Penelope Watson

Senior Lecturer

 

Macquarie Law School

Building W3A

Macquarie University NSW 2109

 

Tel: +61 2 9850 7071

Fax: +61 2 9850 7686