What is the main point of Letang v. Cooper?

Trespass to person needs an intentional act. If the act is careless, the correct action is negligence, not trespass.

Why did the plaintiff switch from negligence to trespass?

Because the 3-year limitation for negligence had expired. She tried trespass to avoid the time bar, but it failed.

How did the court separate trespass and negligence?

By intention: trespass requires intent to make contact; negligence covers accidental harm caused by lack of care.

Which judges decided the case?

The Court of Appeal: Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ, and Danckwerts LJ.

What should students remember for exams?

Do not re-badge negligence as trespass to bypass limitation. Match the tort to the state of mind.

Today: November 02, 2025
info@laweasy.in

letang-v-cooper-1965-1-qb-232

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

401

Letang v. Cooper (1965) Case Explainer: Trespass to Person vs Negligence | The Law Easy

Letang v. Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232

Court of Appeal 1965 Bench: Denning MR, Diplock LJ, Danckwerts LJ Citation: [1965] 1 QB 232 Tort Law ~6 min read

trespass-to-person negligence intention

Author: Gulzar Hashmi

Location: India

Published: 2025-10-30

Comment

Nothing for now

About Us

LawEasy is your ultimate resource for law exam preparation, offering comprehensive materials, expert guidance, and practice tests to ensure your success. Join our community to achieve your legal career goals with ease and confidence.

Useful Links

Contact

34 Westend Marg Saket New Delhi 110030

info@laweasy.in

+91 836 832 4411 , 91402 72853

Newsletter

In order to get the latest news and other great items, please subscribe us here:

letang-v-cooper-1965-1-qb-232

Share

Comment

Related Post

Tags

Archive

Popular & Recent Post