Legal Case Summary
Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232
Intention to cause harm and trespass to the person
Facts
In the summer of 1957, the claimant was sunbathing outside on a piece of land which ordinarily served as a car park. While she was sunbathing, the Defendant reversed over her legs with his car, causing her injury. The defendant did not do it intentionally, however the claimant had the option of claiming in negligence. She did not, immediately, choose to do so. By 1961 she had decided to start a claim, but as a claim of negligence had limitation period of three years (as per the Limitation Act 1939 2 & 3 Geo.6 c.21 as amended by section 2 of the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions, etc.) Act, 1954) she made a claim under trespass to the person.
Issues
The issue in this case was whether it was possible to make a claim under trespass to the person if the action was negligent rather than intentional as until then the tort of trespass to the person had been applied to both types of situation.
Decision/Outcome
Adopting the approach from Kruber v Grzesiak ([1963] VR 621) the court held that where the damage was caused by an action which was not intentional, then the proper action is one in negligence and not in trespass to the person. For the claimant, this meant that she could not start the action she had (based on trespass) and that her only available action was time barred. In terms of the law, the judgement of the court meant that a distinction was established between the torts of negligence and the trespass to the person based on intent. In effect, this meant that the law on trespass to the person has been narrowed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This summary of Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 remains legally accurate. The core principle established by the Court of Appeal — that trespass to the person requires an intentional act, and that where harm results from an unintentional (negligent) act the correct cause of action is negligence — continues to represent good law and is regularly cited in English tort law.
One minor point of context: the Limitation Act 1939 referred to in the article has since been replaced. The current governing statute on limitation periods is the Limitation Act 1980, which retains a general three-year limitation period for personal injury claims (section 11). This does not affect the accuracy of the article’s description of the position as it stood at the time of the case, but students should be aware that the 1939 Act is no longer in force.
The article’s description of the case facts, the issue, and the outcome is otherwise consistent with the reported judgment and standard academic treatment of this authority.
