Assault Flashcards
I de S and Wife v W de S,
i. Facts
1) P owned a tavern in which the D visited
2) D hit the door of tavern with a hatchet when he learned it was closed
3) P wife ordered the d to stop
4) De perceived the wife and hit it again
5) P sues the D
ii. Issue
1) Did the D commit an actionable offense in hitting the P door even though he did not hit the P’s wife?
iii. Holding
1) D’s actions amount to an assault even though he didn’t harm her
iv. Notes
1) Assault is conduct which puts another in apprehension of immediate battery
2) Intention conduct is the key to assault,
3) Battery is offensive contact, whereas assault is apprehension that offensive contact may result
4) Does drunkenness diminish responsibility
a) No it does not
b) It is a bad idea to allow it to do so
5) Sneak into a girls room at night and kiss her, then go tell your buddies, is it assault? No the girl was no aware of the kiss, could be battery though
b. Tuberville v. Savage
i. Facts
1) D put hand on his sword and said if the judge weren’t here I would not take such language from you. The P sues for assault
ii. Issue:
1) Did the D commit an assault by touching his sword and stating that it was his intent not to assault?
iii. Holding
1) No because the D stated that he would not do commit the act,
iv. Notes
1) if he had done the opposite and said, “I am going to strike you down” it would be different
2) If you threaten someone from a good physical distance such as through a text or letter, it does not consitute assault, because the threat is not immediate.
3) Conduct requires an act of some sort, mere words do not constitute an act
Stand and deliver, by itself is not assault, but words plus be blocking your path is an act that puts me in apprehension of an imminent battery.
Blackstone Commentaries
i. Holding
1) Assault is an attempt to offer to beat another, without touching him,
a) As if one lifts up his cane or fist in a threatening manner at another or strikes but misses him
Inchoate violence, amounting to considerably higher likely hood of battery than mere threat constitutes an assault
d. Allen v. Hannaford
i. Facts
1) P hired moving men to remove Furniture from an apartment rented from the D, D appeared at the scene with an unloaded pistol and threatened to shoot the men full of holes. Stood a few feet from the P and threatened to shoot her, the P now sues for assault
ii. Issue
1) Did the D commit an assault on P even though the pistol was unloaded
iii. Holding
1) Assault determined by apprehensions created in the mind of another not the secret intentions of the person making the assault.
Beach v. Hancock
i. Holding
1) One of the most important objects to be attained by enactment of laws and the institutions of civilized society is each of us shall feel secure against unlawful assaults
We have a right to live in a society without being put in fear of personal harm. But it must be a reasonable fear of which we complain
SS 2-18
i. Battery Offensive Contact
1) An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
a) He acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact wit hteh person or the other or a third person or an imminent apprehension of such contact; and
b) An offensive contact with the person of the other directly results
An act which is not done with the intention stated in subsection 1a does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and therefore would be NEG or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm.
SS 2-21
i. Assault
1) Intentionally acts to cause harmful/offensive contact with person or third person; OR
2) imminent apprehension of such contact: AND
3) Other is put in such imminent apprehension
SS 2-24
i. Apprehension
1) It is enough that he believes that the act is capable of immediately inflicting the contact upon him unless something further occurs.
a) Fear is not necessary
b) Ability to defend against the assault does not negate the assault
ii. TL
1) Books say that ordinary English regards apprehension and fear as synonyms but in torts they are not Tl disagrees and says they are synonyms
Brower v. Ackerly
i. Facts
1) P sued D for operating billboards without permits thereby evading taxes
2) D sons began harassing P by phone calling him names and saying he was going to kick his ass
ii. Issue
1) Did the D statements constitute an actionable assault?
Holding No CoA D, words did not result in an immediate threat
Alcorn v Mitchell
i. Facts
1) P and D were litigants in a prior case, at the conclusion of trial D spat on P’s face
ii. Issue:
1) Is D liable for damages that result from spitting on P’s face
iii. Holding
1) Yes
a) Spitting on P face is an act of great indignity and highly provocative or retaliatory force, Law should afford substantial protection from such outrages
iv. Notes
1) How can this not be a battery?
a) It is, and its stupid that it is even in the book
Open and shut case of battery
Respublica v De Longchamps
i. Facts:
1) D Struck the Cane of a French ambassador and was sued for assault
ii. Holding
1) D is liable because insult itself is more to be considered than the actual damage
a) Type of offense too often incites dueling that results in murder
iii. Notes
1) This case is to show that the cane is an extension of the person. It is also to show that something the person is wearing or holding is an extension of that person.
2) If you strike a person who is riding a horse and you strike the horse is that battery?
a) Yes the horse is part of the person
3) What if you are in a parking lot and I come up to you and tell you and punch your car, and cause damage, is that battery?
It depends
