Assault (tort)

In the field of civil law, assault is a specific type of tort. A tort is a wrongful act that allows one person to sue another. Assault occurs when someone acts intentionally to cause another person to experience reasonable apprehension. This means the victim expects immediate harmful or offensive contact. The contact does not actually have to happen for an assault to occur. It is classified as an intentional tort rather than a tort of negligence. Negligence involves accidents, but assault requires a purposeful action.

To understand assault, it is helpful to distinguish it from battery. A battery is the actual unwanted physical contact itself. In contrast, assault is the anticipation of that contact. For example, if Henry points a gun at Thomas, he has committed an assault. It does not matter if the gun is loaded or not. However, Henry only commits a battery if he shoots the gun and hits Thomas. An assault can also be viewed as an attempted battery.

Legal experts look for three specific elements to establish a tortious assault. First, the defendant must perform a positive act. Second, the plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension of immediate physical contact. Third, the defendant's act must be intentional. This intent can be categorized as either specific or general. Specific intent means the person intended to cause the apprehension of contact. General intent means the person knew their action would likely cause that apprehension.

Lawyers also define what makes contact "harmful" or "offensive." Contact is considered harmful if it is intended to injure, disfigure, or cause pain. An act is deemed offensive if it would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity. The threat must also feel imminent. Imminence suggests there is little to no opportunity for someone to intervene. Furthermore, the victim does not even need to feel actual fear. They only need to be aware of the imminence of the act.

The history of assault laws shows how legal definitions have evolved. Originally, common law required an overt act alongside words. Words alone were often not enough to constitute an assault. However, this changed as different cases were decided in court. In the 1997 case of R v Ireland, the court held that repeated silent telephone calls could be an assault. Lord Steyn noted that saying gestures can be an assault while words cannot was an unrealistic view.

There are also special categories like conditional assault. This occurs when someone places a condition on their threat. In the 1853 case Read v Coker, a group threatened to break a man's neck if he did not leave. The court found the defendants liable for assault. Interestingly, words can sometimes negate an assault, but only to a certain extent. In Tuberville v Savage (1669), words that showed no intent to strike prevented an assault. However, if a person holds a knife to a throat and says they won't cut because people are watching, it is still an assault.

Not every threatening act is considered an unlawful assault. There are several legal defenses that can be used. A person may have a lawful justification, such as self-defense or defending a third party. In many sports, participants give implied consent to certain types of contact. Additionally, some actions are considered privileged. For instance, a police officer may have the legal right to draw a firearm on a suspect. Finally, a state called automatism, such as sleepwalking, can negate intent because the person is not acting voluntarily.

If a person is found liable for assault, they may have to pay damages. Because assault is actionable per se, a claimant can receive nominal damages even if no physical harm occurred. They may also receive compensatory damages to return them to their original state. If the assault was an affront to their dignity, they might receive aggravated damages. In some cases, a court may issue an injunction. This is a legal order used to stop repeated behavior by setting specific conditions.