Assault and Battery under Torts Law
Assault and Battery under Tort Law
1. Introduction
Assault and battery are two distinct but related intentional torts that protect a person’s bodily integrity and dignity.
Assault is the apprehension or fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
Battery is the actual harmful or offensive contact with another person without consent.
Both are intentional torts, meaning the defendant must intend the act that results in the harm or apprehension.
2. Elements of Assault
To establish assault, the plaintiff must prove:
Intent: The defendant intended to cause apprehension of harmful or offensive contact.
Apprehension: The plaintiff was aware of and apprehended the threat of imminent harm.
Imminence: The threat of contact was immediate and not in the distant future.
Reasonableness: The plaintiff’s apprehension was reasonable.
a. Key Points
No physical contact is necessary.
The fear or apprehension must be of imminent harm.
Words alone may suffice if they create a reasonable apprehension of immediate harm.
Conditional threats can qualify if the plaintiff reasonably apprehends harm.
b. Case Law:
Case: I de S et ux v. W de S (1348) (Early English Case)
Fact: Defendant raised his fist threateningly.
Held: The court recognized that assault can occur even without actual contact.
Significance: One of the earliest recognitions of assault as causing apprehension.
Case: Tuberville v. Savage (1669) 1 Mod. 3
Facts: Defendant said, “If it were not assize time, I would not take such language,” while placing hand on sword.
Held: Words negated the threat of imminent harm, so no assault.
Significance: Showed that conditional or non-imminent threats may not constitute assault.
3. Elements of Battery
To establish battery, the plaintiff must prove:
Intent: Defendant intended to make contact.
Contact: Defendant caused harmful or offensive physical contact.
Harm or Offense: The contact was harmful or offensive to a reasonable person.
Lack of Consent: Contact occurred without the plaintiff’s consent.
a. Key Points
The contact can be direct or indirect (e.g., throwing an object).
Contact need not cause actual injury; offensive touching suffices.
Intent can be either to cause contact or knowledge that contact is substantially certain.
b. Case Law:
Case: Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523 (1891)
Facts: Defendant lightly kicked plaintiff’s leg in class, causing serious injury.
Held: Defendant liable for battery despite lack of intent to harm; intent to contact was sufficient.
Significance: Established that intent to contact is enough even if harm was unintended.
Case: Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Ltd. [1967] 1 WLR 1233 (UK)
Facts: Defendant snatched a plate from plaintiff’s hand.
Held: This constituted battery as offensive contact.
Significance: Showed battery includes offensive contact even without bodily touching.
4. Relationship Between Assault and Battery
Assault is often described as the threat or attempt of battery.
Battery requires actual contact.
A plaintiff can sue for assault alone, battery alone, or both.
5. Defenses to Assault and Battery
Consent: If plaintiff consented, no liability.
Self-defense: Use of reasonable force to prevent harm.
Defense of others or property: Reasonable force allowed.
Privilege: Certain actors (e.g., police) may have immunity in lawful acts.
6. Damages
Plaintiffs can recover compensatory damages for physical injury, emotional distress, or humiliation.
In some cases, punitive damages may be awarded for egregious conduct.
7. Conclusion
Assault and battery are intentional torts protecting individuals from threats and unauthorized physical contact. Assault involves the reasonable apprehension of imminent harm, while battery requires actual harmful or offensive contact. Case law over centuries has refined these principles to balance protection of personal integrity with reasonable societal interactions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments