Assault (tort)

Last updated

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. [1] 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.' [2]

Contents

In criminal law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury. [3]

Comparison to battery

As distinguished from battery, assault does not need to involve the 'unwanted physical contact; but is the anticipation of such contact'. [4] It only needs intent to make or threaten contact and the resulting apprehension. [5] At one point, the common law understanding of assault required more than words alone, it also required an overt act. This understanding has changed, while words alone cannot be construed as assault, words coinciding with actions or circumstances that would put a person in reasonable apprehension that a harm or offensive contact was likely to occur would. [6] For example, an actor shouting "I'm going to kill you" while not moving but in complete shadow and with a knife in their hand could be interpreted as assault. [7]

Additionally, fear is not required for an assault to occur, only anticipation of subsequent battery. A battery can occur without a preceding assault, such as if a person is struck in the back of the head. An assault can be an attempted battery.

I.e. 'If Henry points a gun at Thomas he has committed an assault. It makes no difference whether the gun is loaded,' [4] But 'Henry will only commit a battery if he shoots the gun and hits Thomas'. [4]

Elements

Defined by Collins v Wilcock as 'an act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate unlawful force on his person', [8] 'assault protects the claimant who fears or apprehends a battery.' [4] Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault: [9] first, there must be a positive act by the defendant; [10] second, the plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) of immediate physical contact, [10] [11] and third, the defendant's act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension). [12]

An actionable assault requires that:

But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.

It is clear that 'all forms of trespass require an intentional act. An act of negligence will not suffice.' [14] There must be capacity and immediacy - simply threatening someone will not suffice.

Whilst it has been speculated that words alone do not constitute assault, there must be an act (I.e. in R v Meade [15] ), this was questioned in R v Ireland [16] it was held that repeated silent telephone calls being made can constitute an assault:

'The proposition that a gesture may amount to an assault, but that words can never suffice, is unrealistic and indefensible.' [16] - Lord Steyn

Moreover, In Australia, the test for proving tortious assault is formulated as requiring 'proof of an intention to create in another person an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact' . [12] : paras 56–8 

Different types of assault

Conditional assault

This is whereby someone puts a condition on their assault. In the case of Read v Coker, [17] where the claimant was threatened by a group of people who said: 'if you don't leave we will break your neck.' [17] The court held the defendants were liable and this constituted an assault. Moreover, Jervis CJ stated: 'If anything short of actual striking will in law constitute an assault, the facts here clearly showed that D was guilty of an assault.' [17]

Words negating an assault to a certain extent

Whilst it was held in Tuberville v Savage , [18] where the defendant said 'If it were not assize time, I would not take such language from you,' [19] whilst showing his sword, that words negating an assault is not an assault. This was because 'the intention as well as the act makes an assault' [19] and 'the court agreed it was not; for the declaration of the plaintiff was, that he would not assault him,'. [19]

However, words negating an assault to a certain extent is an assault. "If one, intending to assault: so if he held up his hand against another in a threatening manner and say nothing, it is an assault.-'. [19] For example, If person A held a knife to right up to person B's throat and said: "because there are people around I won't cut you", this would be enough to warrant an assault. This was clarified in R v Light [20] where the defendant held a spade over his wife's head and said 'if that police officer wasn't outside, I would hurt you'. [20] This was held to warrant an assault, words can only negate an assault to a certain extent. If there is a weapon in hand then the words you say are unlikely to negate your assault. 'There is an obvious proximity in time and place.' and a viable threat of real, imminent harm. [21]

Defences

Assault can be justified in situations where there is 'lawful justification or excuse' [4] for their actions such as: self-defense or defense of a third party where the act was deemed reasonable and necessary. It can also be justified in the context of a sport where consent may be given or implied. An act of assault may also be privileged, meaning that the person who commits the assault had the legal right to do so and cannot be sued, as might occur if a police officer draws a firearm on a criminal suspect. Lastly, automatism (e.g., sleep walking) acts to negate the intent element as someone acting while asleep is not acting voluntarily.

Damages

The claimant could be awarded nominal damage, if no harm came to them because this tort is actionable per se. [22] Additionally, they could be entitled to: compensatory damages whereby you try and put the claimant in the position they would have been in before the assault occurred, [22] or the claimant could be entitled to an injunction whereby you try and stop repeated behaviour occurring by setting conditions [22] and finally, aggravated damages may be awarded which are awarded if the tort is found to be an affront to someone's dignity. [22]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assault</span> Physical or verbal attack of another person

An assault is the illegal act of causing physical harm or unwanted physical contact to another person, or, in some legal definitions, the threat or attempt to do so. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in criminal prosecution, civil liability, or both. Additionally, assault is a criminal act in which a person intentionally causes fear of physical harm or offensive contact to another person. Assault can be committed with or without a weapon and can range from physical violence to threats of violence. Assault is frequently referred to as an attempt to commit battery, which is the deliberate use of physical force against another person. The deliberate inflicting of fear, apprehension, or terror is another definition of assault that can be found in several legal systems. Depending on the severity of the offense, assault may result in a fine, imprisonment, or even death.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the act of creating apprehension of such contact.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

Transferred intent is a legal doctrine that holds that, when the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator is still held responsible. To be held legally responsible, a court typically must demonstrate that the perpetrator had criminal intent, that is, that they knew or should have known that another would be harmed by their actions and wanted this harm to occur. For example, if a murderer intends to kill John, but accidentally kills George instead, the intent is transferred from John to George, and the killer is held to have had criminal intent.

At common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'Trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.

An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor. The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a statutory offence of aggravated assault in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Hong Kong and the Solomon Islands. It has been abolished in the Republic of Ireland and in South Australia, but replaced with a similar offence.

Common assault is an offence in English law. It is committed by a person who causes another person to apprehend the immediate use of unlawful violence by the defendant. In England and Wales, the penalty and mode of trial for this offence is provided by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

Harassment is a topic which, in the past couple of decades, has been taken increasingly seriously in the United Kingdom, and has been the subject of a number of pieces of legislation.

Tuberville v Savage (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3; 86 ER 684 is an English decision about the requirements for both the tort of assault and the common law criminal offence of common assault. It involved plaintiff Tuberville versus defendant Savage. The court held that a conditional threatening statement, without an imminent threat of harm, does not constitute an assault.

A dignitary tort is type of intentional tort where the cause of action is being subjected to certain kinds of indignities. Historically, this category of torts was often covered by the writ of trespass vi et armis.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of the United States</span>

Criminal law is a system of laws that is connected with crimes and punishments of an individual who commits crimes. In comparison, civil law is where the case argues their issues with one entity to another entity with support of the law. Crimes can vary in definition by jurisdiction but the basis for a crime are fairly consistent regardless.

Non-fatal offences against the person, under English law, are generally taken to mean offences which take the form of an attack directed at another person, that do not result in the death of any person. Such offences where death occurs are considered homicide, whilst sexual offences are generally considered separately, since they differ substantially from other offences against the person in theoretical basis and composition. Non-fatal offences against the person mainly derive from the Offences against the Person Act 1861, although no definition of assault or battery is given there.

Intrusion on seclusion is one of the four privacy torts created under U.S. common law. Intrusion on seclusion is commonly thought to be the bread-and-butter claim for an "invasion of privacy." Seclusion is defined as the state of being private and away from people.

References

  1. ↑ Clark, George Luther (1910). American Law & Procedure, Vol II, Torts. La Salle Extension University. p. 16. ISBN   9781166483043.
  2. ↑ Simon. F. Deakin and Zoe Adams (2019). Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 348. ISBN   9780198747963.
  3. ↑ Garner, Bryan A. (2011). Black's Law Dictionary. West Group (Law). p. 122. ISBN   978-0314275448.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kirsty Horsey and Erica Radley (2019). Tort law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 410–442. ISBN   9780198829270.
  5. ↑ Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991)
  6. ↑ Restatement (Third) of Torts: Inten. Torts to Persons § 103 DD (2014)
  7. ↑ Dobbs, Dan B. (2017). Torts and compensation : personal accountability and social responsibility for injury. Hayden, Paul T., 1956-, Bublick, Ellen M. (Concise edition, Eighth ed.). St. Paul, MN. p. 59. ISBN   978-1-63460-818-3. OCLC   1001282536.
  8. ↑ Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172 at [1177]
  9. ↑ Davis, Julia. Connecting with Tort Law. Oxford. p. 138.
  10. 1 2 Barton v Armstrong [1973] UKPC 27 , [1976] AC 104, Privy Council (on appeal from NSW).
  11. ↑ Dunwoodie v Teachers Mutual Bank Ltd [2014] NSWCA 24 , Court of Appeal (NSW,Australia).
  12. 1 2 Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 265 , Court of Appeal (NSW,Australia).
  13. ↑ R v Knight (1988) 35 A Crim R 314, Zanker v Vartzokas (1988) 34 A Crim R.
  14. ↑ Iqbal v Prison Officer's Association [2010] EWCA Civ 1312 (Smith LJ at [71])
  15. ↑ R v Meade and Belt [1823] 1 Lew CC 184
  16. 1 2 R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534
  17. 1 2 3 Read v Coker (1853) 138 ER 1437
  18. ↑ Tuberville v Savage [1669] EWHC KB J25
  19. 1 2 3 4 Westlaw (1669). "Tuberville v Savage 86 E.R. 684: Case analysis". Modern. 1 (3) – via Westalw.
  20. 1 2 R v Light (1857) All ER Rep 934
  21. ↑ Westlaw (13 October 2008). "R. v Light (Oliver Marcus) [2008] EWCA Crim 2371". Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Judgments– via Westlaw.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Timon Hughes-Davies and Nathan Tamblyn, (2020). 'Tort Law'. (Oxon: Routledge) ISBN 9781138554597
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.