## Facts

- Fowler sued Lanning in trespass to the person (battery) after a shooting incident.
- The statement of claim alleged only that “the defendant shot the plaintiff” and listed resulting injuries.
- The pleading did not allege the shooting was intentional, negligent, or otherwise wrongful.
- Lanning denied shooting Fowler and objected that the pleading disclosed no cause of action because it omitted any allegation of intention or negligence.
- The matter came before Diplock J on whether the claim, as pleaded, was legally sufficient.

## Issues

1. Whether trespass to the person is available where injury is caused unintentionally and without negligence.
2. Whether a plaintiff suing in trespass for an unintentional injury must plead and prove negligence (or intention).
3. Whether a rule requiring negligence depends on whether the injury occurred on a highway rather than elsewhere.

## Decision

- The court held that trespass to the person does not lie for injury caused unintentionally and without negligence.
- In an unintentional shooting case pleaded as trespass, negligence is a necessary element of liability.
- The burden of proving negligence in such a case rests on the plaintiff, who must plead negligence and provide particulars.
- Any location-based distinction (highway versus elsewhere) was rejected; the same requirement applies regardless of where the injury occurred.
- Because the statement of claim alleged only that the defendant shot the plaintiff, without alleging intention or negligence, it disclosed no cause of action and could not proceed as pleaded.

## Legal Principles

- Trespass to the person requires intention or, for unintentional acts, proof of negligence; purely accidental, non-negligent harm is not actionable in trespass.
- In unintentional personal-injury trespass claims, the plaintiff bears the onus to plead and prove negligence and to provide particulars supporting that allegation.
- The requirement to show negligence for accidental injury applies irrespective of whether the incident occurred on the highway or elsewhere.
- Even where an inference of negligence might be argued from the nature of the accident, negligence must still be pleaded rather than left unstated.

## Conclusion

The court treated the case as a pleading failure and held that a bare allegation that the defendant shot the plaintiff is insufficient in trespass unless the claimant alleges and proves intention or, for an accidental shooting, negligence; the claimant bears that burden and cannot avoid it by relying on a location-based distinction.


Fowler v. Lanning, [1959] 1 Q.B. 426 (Q.B.D.)