1 a acts o 2 intending to cause in p apprehension of

This preview shows page 35 - 38 out of 51 pages.

(1) A actso(2) intendingto cause in P apprehension of imminentharmful or offensive contact;and
o(3) A’s act causesP reasonablyto apprehend such contact Assault is a completedtort, NOT an attempted tort oIt is a violation of another’s right to be free from certain threats Beach v. Hancockpointing a loaded gun at someone is an assault, regardless of whether they know if it is loaded or not Words alone are insufficient to support assault claimsoEspecially if they are over the phoneIn Brooker v. SilverthorneD was not present to make good on his wordsThe threat was stated conditionally”if…then I will kill you”oNo intent to cause apprehension of imminentharmful or offensive contact Abusive language possibly, but that does not make it assaultive oApprehension of imminentharmful or offensive contact is unreasonable oIn Vetter v. MorganP’s van doors were locked, P could sue van to escape, three young men against one young woman, 1:30 AM at unpopulated intersection, ability of D to inflict harm, aggressive behavior of Ds towards PsD intendedfor P to apprehend imminent harmful or offensive contact P actually and reasonably apprehendedimminent harmful or offensive contact, based on the actions of DMore than just words, but the circumstantial evidence indicates that P could have reasonably apprehended imminent contact Aiding and Abetting is another important area of assault oIn Phelps v. BrossP (Phelps) went back with Ds (Church and Bross)Claims that Church sexually assaulted her and claims assault (aiding and abetting) by Bross because, when she woke up, Bross was sitting there clothed while she was naked There was NO aiding or abetting because there was no encouragement or participationTransferred IntentDoctrine of Transferred Intentone intentionally commits an assault or battery at anotherand by mistake strikes a third person, he is guilty of assault/battery of the third person if D’s intention to strike an unlawful blowoNot essential that the injury be the one intended In re WhiteD (White) intended to shoot T, but he missed and ended up shooting P (Davis)D was liable here because of transferred intent
Four Versions of Transferred Intent ISame victim, different intentional tort Intended assault of Pbattery of Pe.g. Nelson v. CarrollIIDifferent victim, same intentional tortIntended battery of Abattery of Pe.g. In re WhiteIIIDifferent victim, different intentional tortIntended to assault Abattery of Pe.g. In re White(if White only intended toscare Tipton)IVFrom things to personsIntent to harm chattelbattery of Pe.g. Lynn v. Burnette(D tried to shoot P’s car,missed and ended up shooting P)C.Assault/Battery Affirmative Defenses Standard defenses are:o(1) Self-defense o(2) Consent o(3) Defense and Recapture of Property These are justificationsNOT excusesoJustificationD’s conduct meets definition of a tort, but, all things considered, was not wrongful oExcuseD’s conduct meets the definition of a tort, but the situation was such that

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture