Can anyone evaluate this answer? I didn't do all of the issues, because I didn't have time. Also, take it easy on causation, because we haven't covered it yet.
Smalls' Claims:
v. Mudibe
Assault
1.
intentional
Act 2) imminent apprehension 3) causation
1) Mudibe threatens to hit Smalls, evidencing his intent, then takes a clear action in furtherance of that threat: swinging the penis statue. 2) Smalls was watching Mudibe (otherwise he could not have ducked). This in conjunction with the threat he received earlier provides sufficient evidence that he was placed in reasonable apprehension of a physical contact. That he managed to duck is irrelevant, escape or defense does not excuse assault. Similarly, that Smalls may have been able to avoid the assault by complying with Mudibe's demand to lick the balls does not absolve Mudibe of liability; he had no right to impose such condition on Smalls.
Mudibe's council will argue self-defense and defense of property.
Self-defense
1) reasonable apprehension of a harm 2) proportional response.
Here Mudibe can argue that he was afraid of being battered by Smalls, having just broken through his window. Smalls' council will respond, more convincingly, that Smalls appeared frightened, not menacing when he entered the window (this suggests a defense of necessity for the trespass, but more information is needed). Furthermore, no direct action, aside from the initial trespass, was taken to indicate that Smalls intended to harm Mudibe. Furthermore, Smalls stood for a minute or two before Mudibe hit him. These facts combine to suggest that any threat Mudibe may have faced subsided, taking his right to self-defense along with it. On balance, the self-defense defense will fail.
Defense of Property
One may defend their property if they have 1) privileged to do so and 2) use reasonable force. 1) Mudibe would have been privileged to defend his property with force that was not likely to cause death or serious injury. However, one must demand an interloper to exit if it is reasonably possible to do so before exercising such force. Mudibe stood and talked to Smalls, giving him more than enough opportunity to leave the property. 2) If Mudibe can somehow prove that he was unable to demand Smalls' exit, his force was probably reasonable. The penis statue hit Darla in the stomach, suggesting that it probably was initially swung at a somewhat low height (as opposed to say, the head). Even if it was initially swung at Smalls' head and arched down, penis statues are liable to be blunt and curved, not particularly sharp and thus unlikely to cause death or serious injury.
On balance, the self-defense and defense of property defenses will fail
It should be noted that if either of these defenses prevail, they will absolve Mudibe of liability for Darla's battery, because self-defense will absorb the tortious intent.
Darla's Claims:
v. Brickthrower
(see Mudibe v. Brickthrower)
v. Mudibe
Battery
1.
intentional
Act 2) harmful or offensive contact 3) causation
1) Mudibe clearly threatens to hit Smalls if he does not lick his balls. When Smalls does not, Mudibe swings the statue at Smalls, a voluntary action in aggression for failing to comply with a demand. This intent can be transferred to Darla. 2) Darla is hit in the stomach with the statue, a contact a reasonable person would find offensive. If the statue contacted her clothing it still constitutes battery, as her clothes are customarily regarded as part of her body. 3) Darla was hit with the statue as a result of Mudibe's initial action. Butfor causation established.
On balance, Mudibe committed battery
Mudibe's Claims:
v. Darla
Assault
Assault is
1.
an intentional act 2) apprehension 3) causation
1) Darla raises her fist at Mudibe while walking towards him. Raising a fist while approaching somebody is a volitional movement that implies a physical threat to Madlibe. Context strengthens the intent element: after Madlibe hit Darla in the stomach, she has reason to want to batter him. 2) Madlibe probably suffered an apprehension of contact. If the court is implying the subjective standard, Madlibe can point to his fleeing Darla as evidence of apprehension. If the court is applying an objective standard, a reasonable person would be put in apprehension by an individual they accidentally harmed approaching with a raised fist. This is a battery inchoate, and liable to induce a reasonable person to fear a strike from Darla's fist. The fact that Mudibe fled is irrelevant to the claim, because an assault claim is not diminished based on the ability to defend oneself or flee. Similarly, her threat after Mudibe has begun to flee does not constitute part of the assault, as Mudibe's imminent apprehension had already passed.
3) If Darla had not raised her fist at Mudibe, he would not have suffered apprehension: butfor causation is established
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
IIED is 1) extreme or outrageous conduct 2) intent or recklessness 3) severe emotional distress 4) causation
1) Darla's threat to get him while he sleeps probably won't be sufficiently extreme or outrageous to prevail in an IIED claim. Such threats are common after heated confrontations and are not liable to be taken 100% seriously. It was not repeated and is not accompanied by other evidence. This is an isolated incident that Mudibe should be expected to endure. Mudibe's council may point to the open-endedness and severity of the threat as exacerbating its severity. Regardless, the standard of extreme and outrageous conduct is quite high, and this will probably fail to meet it. 2) Darla probably intended to cause emotional distress or anguish to Mudibe. She makes a volitional threat, directed soley at Mudibe. Paired with the context in which she approached him in a threatening manner, it is logical to assume that she intends to inflict psychological distress on him. 3) IIED REQUIRES damages. No evidence here indicates Mudibe suffered emotional distress. Without such evidence, claim will fail.
4) No damages, hens no causation.
On balance, Darla did not commit IIED.
v. Brickthrower
Assault
1.
intentional act 2) imminent apprehension 3) causation
1) No information here indicates the brick was thrown in a manner intending to cause apprehension or another intentional tort that would establish transferred intent. Without such evidence, this claim will fail. However, if other circumstances prove intent 2) Mudibe and Darla could both argue imminent apprehension of being hit by the brick. In order to prevail they would have to demonstrate a real apprehension of being hit, not merely shock after the fact. Logic suggests that they would hear the window break, being in the same room, and turn their heads in time to watch it enter the window. Darla almost certainly has a claim, as the brick landed close enough to her to cause apprehension of contact. The strength of Mudibe's claim will depend on his proximity to the brick.
3) But for causation established, had the brick not been thrown there would be no apprehension.
Darla
On balance, brickthrower may have committed assault depending on intent.
Much thanks.