A good example which illustrates the legal principles in relation to personal injury is the following. If a person walks into an is injured by a trap which was set by a second person, and activated by an act of the first person such as stepping upon a doormat. In this case, although the first person has been injured by an intentional act of a second person in setting a trap trespassed would not be available as a remedy is to contact having been activated not by the second person is that by the first persons act would not be a direct but consequential result of the second person’s intentional act in this sort of case, as trespass is not available, the injured plaintiff must reply upon another tort.

Several other examples of factual situations where an action trespassed the person would not be available even though there was an intention to cause harm can be given. Unknown to the first person, a second person put some poise and a cup of tea which is about to be drunk by the first person and the first person then drinks it with consequential injury; the second person intentionally hides the key to the first person is medicine chest and the first person consequentially suffers severe physical distress as a result of a lack of medication; the second person deliberately deliberately leaves an object in the path of the first person, who is blind, so that the first person is injured by falling into the pit or by colliding with the object. Or the second person deliberately presses the bell of a bus just as the first person, an old lady, is about to get off, with the result that the bus starts to move, causing the first person to fall onto the road. In all these cases, trespassed would not be available and the appropriate action would be in action on the case for damages for physical injury. The action should not be framed in the tort of negligence is a tort is totally inappropriate situations involving conduct that is deliberate or intentional.

One of the first cases which made a ward in relation to personal injury was a case of Bird v Holbrook (1828) 4 Bing 628. The defendant, who grew tulips and valuable flower roots in a walled garden some distance from his glowing house, was robbed of flowers and routes from his garden. With the assistance of another man he placed in his garden a spring gun that was set to go off when a person entered his summerhouse or tulip beds. A peahen belonging to an occupier of a house in the neighbourhood escaped into the defendant’s garden, and the plaintiff at the request of the female servant of the owner of the bird climbed over the wall fence and jumped into the garden to retrieve the bird. His foot came into contact with one otherwise attached to the gun discharged large swan shot into the body of the plaintiff, causing severe physical injury. The plaintiff brought an action against a defendant in respect of his injuries. The court held in favour of the plaintiff. This is the first and most basic example of how personal injury became a principal of the modern Law of torts.