Fun intentional torts hypo Forum

[bathtubgin]

What you geeks know about torts I could write on the head of a pin with room left over for the Gueteberg Bible.

Me name is areyouinsane- look up my old threads for the real deal.

HTH

[071816]

I agree with you.

But what if I am a cook and I'm in the kitchen chopping up some onions with a knife and my boss comes up to me and fires me for whatever reason. If I am already holding the knife, but I'm not pointing it at him or holding it up (but I do have it in my hand b/c I was cutting the onions) and I say "How could you fire me? I'm going to kill you!" Is that merely words? Is this a verbal threat only? Or does the fact that I already had a knife in my hand constitute an "act"? I think you could argue that this would be an assault despite the fact that I made no overt act other than tell the cook that I was going to kill him because the threat was 1) imminent and b) capable of being carried out because I already had the knife in my hand.

The person being threatened must also actually be in fear of the threat. Even if they should be and are not, it's not assault.

So for instance, a wife pulls out a fake gun in a divorce meeting and the husband knows it's fake and therefore isn't afraid. Everyone else who hit the deck has an assault claim, but the husband does not because he was not afraid.

Without knowing more about the boss who did the firing, it's impossible to say. But your hypo is exactly what you would see on a Torts exam because it requires you to know the law and apply it by arguing both ways, for assault and against assault. Was the mere act of holding the knife enough? The case would be stronger if the cook said "I'm going to stab you!"

That's exactly what law profs play on.

Fosho. Thanks for humoring a 1L n00b.

[071816]

What you geeks know about torts I could write on the head of a pin with room left over for the Gueteberg Bible.

Me name is areyouinsane- look up my old threads for the real deal.

HTH

LOL he's back.

[Helmholtz]

this is not fun

[quiver]

oh 1Ls...

Also, I really hope that isn't areyouinsane, but judging by his post history (as requested), it might be.

[kblueboi]

Adam sees Barbra being verbally accosted by a wildly gesticulating Cody and runs up to defend Barbra. Cody sees Adam step between him and Barbra and watches him wind up to punch Cody in the face. Adam doesn’t have much hand-eye coordination and entirely misses Cody.

anyone liable?

Adam is liable for assault since he a) intended to cause harmful contact by winding up to punch Cody in the face and b) caused imminent apprehension since Cody saw the punch coming.

Cody could be liable for assault if 'verbally accosted' included threats of physical contact. Combined with the gesticulation, it could be constructed as assault