Assault and Liability: A Detailed Tort Law Case Study Analysis

This case study examines the potential tort liabilities of Alexander, focusing on claims of assault, battery, and false imprisonment arising from an incident where he reacted angrily to Bethany's driving. The analysis explores whether Alexander's actions, specifically shaking his fist and shouting at Bethany, constitute assault under tort law. It references relevant case law, such as R v. S. George and Stephens v. Myers, to determine if Bethany reasonably apprehended immediate unlawful violence. The study also considers potential defenses available to Alexander, including lack of proof, and discusses the essential elements required to establish a claim of assault, such as the apprehension of immediate violence, referencing cases like R v. Constanza and Thomas v. National Union of Mineworkers. The conclusion assesses whether Alexander's words and actions meet the criteria for assault, emphasizing the importance of immediacy and the victim's reasonable fear of personal violence.

Tort Teacher Question

Table of Contents
QUESTION 1 ..................................................................................................................................3
Liability of Alexander.................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 2...................................................................................................................................3
Words spoken by Alexander to Bethany amounts to assault or not............................................3
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

QUESTION 1
Liability of Alexander
The Tort can be referred as the civil wrong which involves an act or the omission which
results in causing injury or harm to other and in return of it, liability is imposed by the court. In
context to the given case scenario, the question arises as to the claim on assault, battery and false
imprisonment against Alexander.
When Bethany have been pulled out of the junction in front of bus, Alexander was forced
to put the brake while driving the bus in a sharp manner. Suddenly anger came out of him as he
thinks it is a dangerous driving so he shakes his fist and shouted at Bethany out of window 'you'll
pay for it'. In this case, there is potential claims for the battery or false imprisonment against
Alexander rather there is assault. It is basically an act which causes reasonable apprehension of
inflicting battery on him by defendant. In the case of R v. S. George, the court held that when
defendant points the loaded gun to other, it amounts to assault. Moreover, in the case of
Stephens v. Myers, the court ruled that if a person advances a manner of threatening to use the
force, it is assault. So in this scenario, Alexander is held liable for assault as he shake its fist and
shouted at Bethany which amounts to threatening her of battery so claim of assault arises against
Alexander. The claim can be successful when Bethany proves that his words were such which
brought likelihood of unlawful touch and fear in her mind1. In the case of R v. Lamb, the court
held that the in order to bring claim of assault, it is must be proved that there was apprehension
of immediate personal violence on plaintiff in a unlawful manner. So this claim can be successful
against Alexander when Bethany proves immediate threat of personal violence from his words.
The defences available to Alexander includes self defence, intoxication, coercion and
lack of proof2. From these, Alexander can claim lack of proof defence as Bethany have to show
that the words of Alexander have apprehended unlawful violence in her mind.
QUESTION 2
Words spoken by Alexander to Bethany amounts to assault or not.
Shaking the fist at someone amounts to shaking the closed hand in a direction of other
person as the way of showing that it is angry on them. When Bethany pulls right in front of bus
1 Sugarman S, 'Restating The Tort Of Battery' (2018) 10 Journal of Tort Law
2 Law E, Principles Of European Tort Law (Springer 2018)

of the junction, Alexander have the forcefully put the brakes and shouted at her by taking you
have to pay for it by shaking the fist at Bethany. In the case of Logdon v. DPP, defendant have
pointed the replica firearm at victim in order to frighten her but then told her that it is replica.
The court held defendant liable for assault as its action apprehended victim of immediate
personal violence. For establishing assault, prosecution is required to prove two elements which
includes the following-
 The words or the conduct of defendant have apprehended immediate violence.
 Defendant have intended them for apprehending immediate violence or have foresaw that
such of the apprehension may be caused3.
In order to bring claim of assault, the important element is apprehension of immediate
violence. In the case of R v. Constanza, judicial interpretation of the word immediacy wherein
the court held that the circumstance which causes immediacy can amount to assault4.
Hence, the words by Alexander amounts to assault as it was spoken with anger and
apprehended victim of the personal violence in an immediate manner. As in the case of Thomas
v. National Union of Mineworkers, the court held that capacity to immediately carry out the
threat is essential element in assault. And in this scenario, words of Alexander caused immediate
threat to Bethany so he will be liable under tort of assault.
3 'False Imprisonment. What Constitutes' (2019) 11 The Virginia Law Register'
4 'Tort: Assault And Battery: Civil Liability Of Person Standing In Loco Parentis To A Minor For Excessive
Chastisement' (2017) 2 Michigan Law Review

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
'False Imprisonment. What Constitutes' (2019) 11 The Virginia Law Register'
'Tort: Assault And Battery: Civil Liability Of Person Standing In Loco Parentis To A Minor For
Excessive Chastisement' (2017) 2 Michigan Law Review
Law E, Principles Of European Tort Law (Springer 2018)
Sugarman S, 'Restating The Tort Of Battery' (2018) 10 Journal of Tort Law