Collins v. Wilcock

This article has multiple issues. Please help or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources:  –  ·  ·  · scholar · JSTOR (September 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article needs attention from an expert in Law. The specific problem is: Article fails to state jurisdiction. The cites are poor quality (legal essay paper mill). Significance and circumstances of case/appeal/decision of Law Lord not established. Emphasis error in that Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley in Collins v. Wilcock established current definitions & case is listed in 'important decisions' in Goff's WP article.. WikiProject Law may be able to help recruit an expert. (September 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Collins v. Wilcock^[1] was a case of trespass to the person focusing on battery. Expanding on Lord Holt's definition of intent in Cole v. Turner, Collins v. Wilcock narrowed the law.^[2] “An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly harms someone indirectly. A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly harms someone directly." But it also says this: “An offense of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.” It notes that the only distinction between common assault and causing actual bodily harm (under section 47 of the Offenses against the Person Act 1861) is the degree of injury.^[3]

References[]