After our discussion about courts expressing elements differently, I was wondering if it might be useful to add something to that effect on the introduction page (just acknowledging that the elements listed through the wiki are not necessarily those used by all judges in different jurisidictions, at different times, etc.)—I think it might be useful for students
While reading the Trespass to the Person in Canada: A Defence of the Traditional Approach paper from the further materials section, this caught my eye
"It has become customary in Canada as elsewhere to think of the several forms of trespass to the person as "intentional torts", that is, torts in which the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant intended the harm. 15 In the United States and England it is perfectly appropriate to think in this way; in Canada, however, it is not. In Canada, to succeed in an action for trespass to the person, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant directly interfered with his person in one of the recognized ways. It is then up to the defendant to allege and prove whatever defences may lie, including the defence of inevitable accident or, in more modem parlance, absence of fault. Thus, trespass to the person in Canada does not require proof that the interference was intentional; negligent or careless interference will equally serve."
Should I add something to this effect in the intention section? (right now I think the intention section seems to be more about the English conception as it relies on Letang v. Cooper)
For the sake of brevity, I didn't repeat explanations of elements in each tort unless there was something distinct (e.g. I didn't go over "intentional" in assault and false imprisonment, but I did in battery to distinguish between intention to make contact and intention to cause the consequences; same idea for "harmful and offensive" in assault)& didn't expand on self-explanatory elements (like causation in false imprisonment)
