Essay2

Essay #2 These are the issues you selected that should be discussed in your essay.: Battery: Margaret throwing apple at (but missing) Dennis Doctrine of Transferred Intent to hold Margaret Liable IIED: Margaret v. Dennis Assault: Margaret throwing apple at (but missing) Dennis Assault: Margaret serving Dennis the lemonade Assault: Dennis threatening to squirt Margaret with squirt gun Doctrine of Transferred Intent to hold Dennis liable IIED: Dennis v. Margaret Issues that you identified: Assault Battery IIED Rules and Facts that you identified: Reasonable apprehension of immediate harm Intentional contact causing physical harm A fallback tort to recover mental damages Your Rule Statement: Assault it the reasonable apprehension of a person for imminent threat of a battery. There are nuanced rules for establishing assault. 1. Assault does not occur with words only - an action supporting words must be present. 2. Assault also does not depend an the actual ability of a defendant, but on the apparent ability. 3. Fear of the plaintiff does not negate assault. Your Analysis Statement: Margaret's assault claim against Dennis for threatening to throw an apple at her would constitute assault based on its legal definition. Assault is the reasonable apprehension, or awareness, of an imminent threat to bodily harm. In this case, Dennis, holding the apple in his hand and saying he was going to throw it at her, would justify an actual apprehension of bodily harm. Apples themselves are solid and could cause legitimate injury if thrown at you. Dennis may counterargue that he never actually intended to throw the apple, but that is irrelevant for assault. The actual intent, or motive, of the defendant does not negate assault. Dennis may also argue that Margaret was not even afraid of the apple being thrown at her, but again this would fail. The level of fear experienced by the plaintiff does not negate assault. Your Conclusion: In conclusion, a court would most likely find Dennis liable for assault against Margaret.

Essay #2 Starting with Margaret's causes of action against Dennis, we find assault, battery and IIED. First, we will break down the rules to each of these intentional torts and apply them to this case. Assault. Assault it the reasonable apprehension of a person for imminent threat of a battery (intentional physical harm or offense). There are nuanced rules for establishing assault. 1. Assault does not occur with words only - an action supporting those words must be present. 2. Assault also does not depend and the actual ability of a defendant, but on the apparent ability. 3. The level of fear of the plaintiff does not negate assault. In this case, assault appears when Dennis pointed a squirt gun at Margaret. Of course, water being squirted at someone is usually not harmful, but it could be and at the very least it would be considered offensive to a reasonable person. Dennis may counterargue that the squirt gun was not loaded, but that is irrelevant in assault. Margaret had a reasonable apprehension that the gun was loaded. Dennis may also counterargue that Margret said she wasn't scared. Again this is irrelevant as the plaintiff's level of fear does not negate assault. We do not see a valid claim for battery against Dennis because battery requires an act, intent and causation with the plaintiff's person. At no point did Dennis touch Margaret, or any part of her person (something she was holding, wearing, etc.). Since no physical contact was made in any manner, we do not see any reason for battery. IIED is usually a fallback tort in trail. IIED is established when defendant acts in extreme and outrageous conduct, usually transcending all bounds of decency. We do not see Dennis acting in this manner at any point. Dennis' threat of throwing the apple was only by words (not enough for assault as an action supporting words must be present); his threat to shoot the squirt gun would most likely not constitute IIED as a squirt gun is generally used as a toy between children, as in the case. Dennis squirting a squirt gun at Margaret would not constitute an outrageous conduct by a reasonable person. Therefore, Margaret has a solid case for assault only. Moving to Dennis's causes of action, specifically assault and battery, the same definitions as described above apply. We see valid claims for neither of these. Dennis may claim assault or battery (or both) for when Margaret threw the apple at him. However, as the definition of apprehension implies awareness, Dennis was never aware of her attempt to throw the apple. This negates an option for assault. Battery also does not exist as not contact was ever made between either party. In the case of the lemonade, Margaret did intend to serve Dennis lemonade, but by no means was she purposefully attempting to harm or would she have been substantially certain it would cause harm. Using a subjective approach, as battery calls for, Margaret should not be liable for battery.