Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd

Last updated

Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd
Savoy Cinema auditorium (1929).jpg
CourtCourt of Appeal
Decided8 July 1914
Citation(s)[1915] 1 KB 1
Case history
Prior action(s)Appellant lost also at first instance in the High Court.
Keywords
Licence; ticketed attendance; removal of people from events (revocation); mistake; law of trespass

Hurst v Picture Theatres Ltd [1915] 1 KB 1 is an English land law case, concerning licences "in" land, specifically ticketed events. The appeal court confirmed that there is no right, based on e.g. land owner's discretion as to determining trespassers, to remove the attendee if the venue operator is mistaken as to the attendee's right to attend.

Contents

Facts

Mr Hurst bought a ticket for 17 March 1913's screening of Lake Garda in a London cinema of Picture Theatres Ltd. The manager honestly believed he had not paid for his seat. He was forced to leave, and then he claimed trespass to the person. The theatre argued that even though it revoked (breached) the licence, a contract relating to a person's right to be somewhere, its mistaken belief could render Hurst a trespasser (if so reasonable force could be used to remove him).

The issue was whether the claimant was entitled to damages under trespass to the person.

Channell J held, with a jury, Hurst could get damages.

Judgment

Buckley LJ confirmed the award. [1]

They committed an assault upon him in law. It was not of a violent kind, because, like a wise man, [Hurst] gave way to superior force and left the theatre… it was for the jury to give him such a sum as was right for the assault which was committed upon him, and for the serious indignity to a gentleman of being seized and treated in this way in a place of public resort.

See also

Notes

  1. [1915] 1 KB 1, 11

Related Research Articles

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

The defence of property is a common method of justification used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for any loss and injury that they have caused because they were acting to protect their property.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theft Act 1968</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Theft Act 1968 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It creates a number of offences against property in England and Wales. On 15 January 2007 the Fraud Act 2006 came into force, redefining most of the offences of deception.

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.'

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English tort law</span> Branch of English law concerning civil wrongs

English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trespass to land</span> Use of land prevented by local property laws

Trespass to land is a common law tort or crime that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done. In some jurisdictions, this rule may also apply to entry upon public land having restricted access. A court may order payment of damages or an injunction to remedy the tort.

In tort common law, the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another. A defendant typically invokes the defense of necessity only against the intentional torts of trespass to chattels, trespass to land, or conversion. The Latin phrase from common law is necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura privata. A court will grant this privilege to a trespasser when the risk of harm to an individual or society is apparently and reasonably greater than the harm to the property. Unlike the privilege of self-defense, those who are harmed by individuals invoking the necessity privilege are usually free from any wrongdoing. Generally, an individual invoking this privilege is obligated to pay any actual damages caused in the use of the property but not punitive or nominal damages.

A stand-your-ground law, sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law, provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against certain violent crimes. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present. The exact details vary by jurisdiction.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

<i>Mozambique rule</i>

The Moçambique rule, or Mozambique rule, is a common law rule in private international law. The rule renders actions relating to title in foreign land, the right to possession of foreign land, and trespass to foreign land non-justiciable in common law jurisdictions. It was established in 1893 by the House of Lords decision in British South Africa Co v. Companhia de Moçambique [1893] AC 602.

Dougherty v. Stepp, 18 N.C. 371 is a decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court authored by Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin. For at least a century, this case has been used in first-year Torts classes in American law schools to teach students about the tort of trespass upon real property.

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

Cooper v Wakley (1828) 172 ER 507 is an English tort law case, concerning the libel by the editor of The Lancet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, and with a gradually diminishing aristocratic presence, now sees a large number of owners playing in an active market for real estate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

<i>Arthur v Anker</i> 1995 English legal case on wheel clamps

Arthur & Another v Anker & Another is an English legal case that set new case law in respect of the use of wheel clamps to immobilise vehicles on private land and is regarded as the leading legal authority on the subject. The case established a legal precedent in relation to the use of wheel clamps and the concept of consent but some years later this was expanded upon in the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest.

<i>Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd v Millennium Productions Ltd</i>

Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd v Millennium Productions Ltd [1948] AC 173 is an English land law case, concerning licenses in land.

<i>Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC</i>

Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC [1981] QB 202 is a land and contract law case on the arbitrary revocation of an agreed, future licence in land for good consideration.

<i>Thompson v Park</i>

Thompson v Park [1944] KB 408 is an English law case, concerning licenses in land.