Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232

Facts

  • In the summer of 1957, the claimant, while sunbathing in a car park, was injured when the defendant accidentally reversed his vehicle over her legs.
  • The defendant’s action was unintentional.
  • The claimant delayed issuing a negligence claim until 1961; by then, the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1939 (as amended) had expired.
  • As a result, the claimant brought her claim under trespass to the person, believing the limitation might be longer or the claim might still be viable.
  • The central point in dispute was whether trespass to the person applied to non-intentional direct injury.

Issues

  1. Whether a claim in trespass to the person may succeed where the defendant’s act causing direct physical harm was unintentional.
  2. Whether the law should continue to allow claims for trespass to the person for unintentional direct injury, or restrict such claims to intentional acts only.
  3. Whether the existence of the distinct tort of negligence affects the scope of trespass to the person.

Decision

  • The court held that trespass to the person requires intentional conduct; negligence is the appropriate cause of action for unintentional direct harm.
  • The claimant’s action failed because the facts demonstrated only negligence, not intentional harm.
  • The court followed the reasoning in Kruber v Grzesiak [1963] VR 621, affirming that intention is necessary for trespass to the person.
  • The scope of trespass to the person was limited to actions where there is an intent to cause harm or a deliberate act that results in harm.
  • The decision clarified that claimants must bring personal injury actions under negligence, not trespass, where there is no evidence of intention.

Legal Principles

  • Trespass to the person requires proof of intentional or deliberate action resulting in direct physical contact or harm.
  • Unintentional acts, even if causing direct harm, are actionable only under negligence.
  • The case refined the boundaries between negligence and trespass to the person by mandating that intent must be present for the latter.
  • The distinction between these torts determines both the appropriate legal avenue for claims and the applicable limitation periods.
  • The principles established in Letang v Cooper remain central in classifying causes of action arising from physical injury.

Conclusion

Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 established that claims for trespass to the person require intentional action, thereby distinguishing this tort from negligence and clarifying both substantive and procedural approaches within personal injury claims.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal