Meaning and Definition: An assault is a threat or attempt to do a corporeal hurt to another, coupled with an apparent physical ability and intention to do the act.
Is actual contact necessary?
Actual contact is not necessary in an assault. But it is not every threat, where there is no actual personal violence that constitutes an assault; there must, in all cases, be means of carrying that threat into effect.
Any gesture calculated to excite, in the party threatened, a reasonable apprehension that the party threatening intends immediately to offer violence, or, in the language of the Pakistan Penal Code, is about to use criminal force to the person threatened, constitute, if coupled with a present ability to carry such intention into execution, an assault in law.
Importance of intention:
The intention as well as the act makes an assault. Therefore, if one strikes upon the hand, or arm, or breast in discourse, it is no assault, there being no intention to assault; but if one, intending to assault, strikes at another and misses him, this is an assault; so if he holds up his hand against another, in a threatening manner, and says nothing, it is an assault.
The example of loaded Pistol
The menacing attitude and hostile purpose go to make the assault unlawful, e.g. presenting a loaded pistol at any one, or pointing or brandishing a weapon at another with the intention of using it, or riding after a person and obliging him to seek shelter to avoid being beaten.
Does words count?
Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which the party threatening uses at the time may either give to his gestures such a meaning as may make them amount to an assault, or, on the other hand, may prevent them from being an assault.
For instance, if A laid his hands on his sword, and said to Z, If it were not as size time, I would not take such language from you. This was held not to be an assault on the ground that the words showed that A did not intend then and there to offer violence to Z.
Here, there was the menacing gesture, showing in itself a intention to use violence, there was the present ability to use violence, but there were also words which would prevent the person threatened from reasonably apprehending that the person threatening was really then and there about to use violence.
Elements of Assault:
Three elements must be established in order to establish tortious assault:
- The plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact.
- The plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind).
- The defendant’s act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended the resulting apprehension).
But intent for purposes of civil assault can be either general or specific.
- Specific intent
Specific intent means that when the defendant acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.
- General intent
General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or unwanted contact.
While the law varies by jurisdiction, contact is often defined as harmful if it objectively intends to injure, disfigure, impair, or cause pain.
The act is deemed offensive if it would offend a reasonable persons sense of personal dignity.
While imminence is judged objectively and varies widely on the facts, it generally suggests there is little to no opportunity for intervening acts.
Lastly, the state of apprehension should be differentiated from the general state of fear, as apprehension requires only that the person be aware of the imminence of the harmful or offensive act.
There are some cases which would illustrate the concept better. They are mentioned under.
Cullison v. Medley
Plaintiff Cullison met 16-year-old Sandy Medley in a grocery store parking lot, invited her to have a soda with him and to come to his home to talk further. A few hours later he was awoken by a knock at his door. He was confronted by Sandy Medley, her father Ernest, her brother, brother-in-law, and mother. Ernest had a revolver in a holster strapped to his thigh. Sandy called him a pervert and her mother berated him. Ernest kept grabbing and shaking the gun while still in the holster and threatening to jump astraddle of him if he did not leave Sandy alone.
Although no one ever touched Cullison, he feared he was about to be shot because Ernest kept grabbing the gun as if to draw it from the holster while threatening him.
As a result of this incident, Cullison sought psychological help to deal with nervousness, depression, sleeplessness, inability to concentrate, and impotency. He sued the Medleys for assault, among other torts. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on all claims, the appeals court affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court reversed on the assault count.
Issue:
Whether threatening language coupled with a holstered pistol rises to the level of assault.
Held:
Yes, it was an assault. Assault occurs when one intentionally creates the reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another. It is a touching of the mind, if not the body, and as such, the damages which are recoverable are for mental trauma and distress. It is assault to shake a fist under another’s nose, to aim or strike at him with a weapon or to hold it in a threatening position, or to surround him with a display of force.
Additionally, the apprehension must be one that would be aroused in the mind of a reasonable person. In this case, a jury could reasonably conclude that the Medleys intended to frighten Cullison by surrounding him in his trailer and verbally threatening him with bodily harm while one of them was armed with a holstered revolver. Accordingly, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment on the assault count.
Tuberville v. Savage
Facts: Tuberville put his hand upon his sword and said If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you. Savage sued Tuberville for assault.
Issue: What are the elements of the tort of assault?
Holding and Rule: To be liable for assault at least one of the following must be present:
- An act intending to cause harmful control to another person, or imminent apprehension.
2. A third person put in apprehension if he believes the person can do damage. An assault exists even if the other party can defend against the action and the action is not inevitable. Mere threats of future harm are insufficient.
In this case the court held that the declaration of Tuberville was that he would not assault Savage at that point in time. To commit an assault there must be intention followed by an act. An assault is present if the fear is reasonable. The court held that in this case there was clearly no intention of assault.
Disposition: For Tuberville.
Note: Threats of future harm are insufficient to establish assault. Conditional threats may suffice where the defendant has no privilege to assert them.
Bavisetti Venkat Surya Rao v. Nandipati Muthayya:
Plaintiff owed a certain amount to the defendant which he was unable to pay. The defendant, in order to collect the amount thought to visit plaintiffs house and sell some movables to recoup the amount.
The defendant called a goldsmith to evaluate the value of gold in the house of plaintiff, but the person standing at the time of such evaluation near the house borrowed the amount from another to give it to the defendant, and after the defendant had taken the amount, the plaintiff sued him for assault.
It was held that since the defendants, after the arrival of the Goldsmith said nothing and did nothing and the threat of use of force by the goldsmith to the plaintiff was too remote a possibility to have put the plaintiff in fear of immediate or instant violence, there was no assault.