Quotation:

Australian law regarding intentional torts has lost its way. Reform opportunities to overcome two significant shortcomings continue to be missed. The coherency of trespass torts would be greatly enhanced if (1) the burden of proof always stayed with the party alleging unlawful interference (or as Kirby P succinctly put it: 'those who assert must prove'1) and (2) if the action in negligent trespass was abandoned. Regrettably, in Australia, the defendant always has the burden of disproving fault in battery and the nonsensical negligent trespass action remains available despite the existence of the separate monolithic tort of negligence. The famous torts scholar Professor John Fleming opined that the reluctance of judges to reform the long-established burden on defendants to disprove fault in trespass to the person's actions is best explained by 'a misplaced cult of historicism'.2 NSW Supreme Court justices are fond of clinging to old ways. For example, in 1972 Jacobs JA wrote: Nothing more has ever been required in an action based on trespass than an allegation of battery and it is too late in the day to change this now. ... Can we ... say that the play has [for centuries] been played wrongly and according to a bad script? I think not. Yet long ago Lord Atkin told us what to do when old forms of action stand in the way of sensible and logical progress: When these ghosts of the past stand in the path of justice, clanking their medieval chains, the proper course for the judge is to pass through them undeterred.

Question:

Responding critically to the assertions in the quotation, and drawing on an illustrative real or hypothetical case provide your reasoned view about the merits of abandoning negligent battery as a course of action. (15 marks)

Can any tutor please help me with this Question^