A man, angry at a neighbor, swung a baseball bat at the neighbor. The man intended to stop the swing just short of the neighbor's head in order to frighten him. The neighbor, who was watching the man's actions, reasonably believed he was about to be struck and dove to the ground to avoid the blow. The bat never made contact with the neighbor.
In a subsequent lawsuit, is the neighbor likely to prevail on a claim of assault?
Yes, because the man intentionally caused the neighbor to have a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful contact.
No, because the man did not intend to actually hit the neighbor.
Yes, because the man's actions were extreme and outrageous.
No, because the bat did not make physical contact with the neighbor.
Yes, the neighbor is likely to prevail. The tort of assault requires an intentional act by the defendant that creates a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Here, the man intentionally swung the bat (the act) to frighten the neighbor (intending to cause apprehension). The neighbor's belief that he was about to be struck was reasonable under the circumstances. Actual physical contact is not required for an assault claim to succeed.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are the key elements that constitute assault?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the reasonable person standard apply to assault cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does assault differ from battery in legal terms?