Transcript
Hi, you're listening to the
Australian Law Student Law Info
podcast.
Your go to source for legal
insights in 4 minutes or less.
I'm Nick Hodgkinson and today
we're talking about our second
intentional tort assault.
But first, our obligatory
disclaimer.
The law info is produced by law
students.
For law students it is not, nor
is it intended to constitute
legal advice.
If you require legal assistance,
you should contact your local
Law Society who can direct you
appropriately.
For more information on the
Australian law student, visit
our website at the
ozlawstudent.com OK Assault.
It's our second intentional
tour.
It's not just about physical
harm, it involves perception and
intent.
Legally assault can be said to
occur when someone intentionally
needs another person to believe
that they're on the brink of
immediate harm and you should
refer here to Brady and Shatzle.
A quick note, the actual battery
doesn't need to occur in order
to bring a legal action for
assault.
Think of it as a pre emptive
strike.
Acts and words can be sufficient
for assault, but this can affect
the quantum your client might
receive when a court orders
damages.
Damages are something that we
will discuss later in the
series.
So what sets assault apart from
the other intentional torts?
Well, assault boils down to the
plaintiff having had a
reasonable apprehension of
imminent contact.
Reasonableness will be assessed
as whether the defendant has had
a clear ability to carry out the
battery.
Assault is not about empty
threats.
Consider this scenario.
Aiming an apparently loaded
rifle constituted assault even
when the rifle turned out to be
empty.
Note the crux here is how a
reasonable person would
interpret the situation giving
more weight to perception than
the actual threat.
As with battery, we still need
to establish positiveness,
directness, and intention, and
you can refer to the first
episode for more on that.
With intention, per Hall and
Fonseca, we look at the
defendant's intention to use
force or to create that
apprehension in the plaintiff.
Let's run over some
hypotheticals that help test our
knowledge of assault.
How immediate must a threat be
for a plaintiff's apprehension
to be reasonable?
If the defendant threatens to go
home, fetch a gun, and return
for a showdown, is that
sufficient?
What if the defendant wasn't
armed initially?
What if the defendant's gun is a
water pistol, which they
represent is a functioning and
loaded gun to the plaintiff?
You should think about how
different degrees of immediacy
and reasonableness can alter the
strength of your argument.
And there we have at the second
episode of the Australian Law,
Students, Law in Four podcast, a
swift exploration of the
fascinating world of intentional
torts.
Join us next time on the
Australian Law Student Law in
Four podcast where we discuss
false imprisonment.
As always, if you have any
suggestions, please e-mail us at
team at the Oslo student.com or
leave a comment in your review
on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.