, de bonis asportis , and quare clau sum fregit , although these now commonly are referred to as the intentional torts . The writ of trespass was developed in the thirteenth century in order to assist those who were the victims of direct and forcible interferences. There was no requirement that the interferences be intended by the defendant, nor that the conduct otherwise be wrongly motivated - so the use of word "intentional torts" is historically inaccurate. Fleming has suggested that direct and forcible interferences were actionable in order to preserve the peace and order in ancient British society with very simple economic and social relations, as this was the type of conduct "most likely to cause breach of the peace during this time by provoking retaliation". [ Read: Fleming, The Law of Torts, 7th Edtn, (1987)]. These "intentional" torts were actionable without proof of damage, consistent with the theory that the Defendant's conduct was wrongful not because actual 27
page 299, BEARDSMORE, V., and COX, A., Opinion Writing and Drafting in Tort, Cavendish
Publishing Limited, 1996.
71 physical damage had been caused, but because the Plaintiff's security, and society's tranquillity, had been disrupted. The "directness" requirement of these torts was rigidly adhered to. This rigidity led to the creation of a new writ , the "action on the case", to provide a remedy where a consequential injury had been caused by the Defendant's wrongful
