Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As distinguished from battery, assault does not need to involve the 'unwanted physical contact; but is the anticipation of such contact'. [4] It only needs intent to make or threaten contact and the resulting apprehension. [5] At one point, the common law understanding of assault required more than words alone, it also required an overt act.
In tort law, there are generally five areas in which transferred intent is applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Generally, any intent to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the ...
In common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless (or, in Australia, negligently [1]) and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.
Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort. Property torts involve any intentional interference with the property rights of the claimant (plaintiff).
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.. Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem (or maiming), and false imprisonment. [1]
Assault (tort) – intentionally and voluntarily causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Battery (tort) – Bringing about an unconsentful harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with that person (such as an item of clothing). It differs from assault in that it ...
Generally, any intent to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the actual target of the tort is one other than the intended target of the original tort. See cases of Carnes v. Thompson, 48 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. 1932) and Bunyan v.
Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. The case involved an incident that occurred on February 20, 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 11-year-old boy, George Putney, while the ...