## Facts

- In the summer of 1957, the claimant, while sunbathing in a car park, was injured when the defendant accidentally reversed his vehicle over her legs.
- The defendant’s action was unintentional.
- The claimant delayed issuing a negligence claim until 1961; by then, the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1939 (as amended) had expired.
- As a result, the claimant brought her claim under trespass to the person, believing the limitation might be longer or the claim might still be viable.
- The central point in dispute was whether trespass to the person applied to non-intentional direct injury.

## Issues

1. Whether a claim in trespass to the person may succeed where the defendant’s act causing direct physical harm was unintentional.
2. Whether the law should continue to allow claims for trespass to the person for unintentional direct injury, or restrict such claims to intentional acts only.
3. Whether the existence of the distinct tort of negligence affects the scope of trespass to the person.

## Decision

- The court held that trespass to the person requires intentional conduct; negligence is the appropriate cause of action for unintentional direct harm.
- The claimant’s action failed because the facts demonstrated only negligence, not intentional harm.
- The court followed the reasoning in Kruber v Grzesiak [1963] VR 621, affirming that intention is necessary for trespass to the person.
- The scope of trespass to the person was limited to actions where there is an intent to cause harm or a deliberate act that results in harm.
- The decision clarified that claimants must bring personal injury actions under negligence, not trespass, where there is no evidence of intention.

## Legal Principles

- Trespass to the person requires proof of intentional or deliberate action resulting in direct physical contact or harm.
- Unintentional acts, even if causing direct harm, are actionable only under negligence.
- The case refined the boundaries between negligence and trespass to the person by mandating that intent must be present for the latter.
- The distinction between these torts determines both the appropriate legal avenue for claims and the applicable limitation periods.
- The principles established in Letang v Cooper remain central in classifying causes of action arising from physical injury.

## Conclusion

Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 established that claims for trespass to the person require intentional action, thereby distinguishing this tort from negligence and clarifying both substantive and procedural approaches within personal injury claims.
