FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 3,196 times | Saved to 357 briefcases
Gilbert v Stone (1648), 82 ER 539 (KB)

Facts:

Case about bullies. Defendant was threatened with injury if he didn’t go onto land and steal plaintiff’s horse. D charged with trespass; but D claims duress.

Issue(s):

Is duress a defence to trespass?

Ratio:

Duress is an irrelevant motive in intentional torts. It is therefore not a defence to trespass, particularly if allowing the defence would deny relief to the plaintiff.

Analysis:

Court rules that duress wasn’t a defence. Policy reasons: need to allow the plaintiff to get relief. Duress will not be a defence to trespass if allowing such a defence would deny adequate relief to the plaintiff. Motive can factor into defences and may be relevant in assessing damages. However, duress is not a relevant motive.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.