JD Program149617First Year Torts Essay OneArt vs. CharlieArt assaulted by CharlieIn order for Charlie to have assaulted Art it will be required to prove that Charlie intentionally caused Art reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No physical touching is required. Intentional ActTo satisfy the intentional act, it must be proven that Charlie intentionally performed. The facts show that Charlie went looking for art; that he approached art to within 10 feet, a distance that person would easily able to cause harm with a firearm if discharged; and, that Charlie aimed the gun at Art. The facts clearly demonstrate that Charlie intended to close distance and point the gun at Art. The requirements of intent are met.Reasonable ApprehensionIt must be reasonable that Art would be fearful or have anxiety/apprehension of the impending contact. Without question, having a firearm pointed at ones person is cause for fear, alarm, anxiety, and grave concern for ones safety. The facts demonstrate that Art was afraid of the contact because he grabbed Bill to utilize as a human shield. Art was clearly fearful of being shot and therefore the element is met. Immediate/ImminentTo prevail on assault, the contact must be an imminent or immediate threat. Because Charlie was using a firearm, was within a close distance, and was told by Charlie that I am going to kill you. Art has a reasonable belief that Charlie intends harm to Art imminently. Harmful or Offensive ContactAssault requires that the expected contact be harmful or offensive. Threat of discharge of a firearm is both potentially harmful and offensive. It is known to all persons that being engaged with a firearm can cause death or serious bodily harm. Arts belief of harmful or offensive contact is warranted.Therefore, because Charlie pointed a gun at Art, Art had apprehension of the contact, the contact was imminent and of harmful or offensive nature Charlie has Assaulted Art and Art will likely prevail on this claim.Battery By Charlie to ArtBattery to Art by Charlie requires that Charlie have committed intentional harmful or offensive contact and that the contact was made. IntentionalIntent for battery can be satisfied by the intent to assault. The same facts apply. Charlie had intent to assault Art and cause harmful and offensive contact. Charlie articulated that he wanted to kill Art and discharged a firearm in his direction. The facts demonstrate that Charlie intended to batter Art. Art will likely prevail on his claim of battery caused by Charlie.Harmful or Offensive ContactThe discharge of a firearm can cause grave bodily harm or death. This level of harm is both offensive and harmful. Therefore, the element of harmful / offensive has been met.Contact MadeBattery further requires that the harmful or offensive contact is made. Art was struck by the bullet discharged by Charlie. Contact was thus made.Ultimately, because a firearm was intentionally discharged by Charlie and struck Art in the arm causing harmful contact, Charlie has battered Art. Art will very likely prevail on this claim.Claims by BillWas Bill Battered by Art?Battery to Bill by Art requires that Art have committed intentional harmful or offensive contact and that the contact was made. IntentionalBill will argue and the facts will demonstrate that Art reached out and grabbed Bill and then pulled him front of him ultimately using him as a shield to prevent being shot by Charlie. This was a volitional act by Art.Defenses by ArtAlthough the grabbing of Bill was intentional, Art will argue that his act was an emergency. In order to qualify as an emergency the intentional act must have been committed with little time to think or plan and that a reasonable person would have performed the same actions under similar circumstances. Here, Art quickly attempted to use Bill as cover. The facts do not show that Art had any time to think of other options, but instead responded immediately in an emergent manner. A jury could similarly find that a reasonable person under the similar circumstances of having a gun pointed at them would have attempted to save their own life and could ultimately find in favor of Art. Harmful or Offensive ContactBattery requires harmful and offensive contact. Art grabbed Bill and moved into the potential path of a bullet intended for Art. This move put Bills life in jeopardy, and therefore would likely make the touching and pulling of Bill in front of Art offensive. Art, therefore, made harmful and offensive contact with bill when he grabbed him and pulled him in front. Contact MadeBattery requires that the contact be made. Here, Art grabbed Bill and pulled Bill in front of him. Battery ResultedBecause Art intentionally grabbed Bill and pushed him in front of him causing harmful and/or offensive contact and that contact was actually made, Art committed battery against Bill. However, a mitigating emergency stemming from Charlies assault will likely exist and it is unlikely that the claim for battery would prevail.

Was Bill Assaulted by Charlie?In order for Charlie to have assaulted Art it will be required to prove that Charlie intentionally caused Art reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. No physical touching is required. Intentional ActAssault is one of the intentional torts where intent may transfer to others. Charlie demonstrated that he intended to specifically assault Art. This was demonstrated by Charlie walking up to and pointing a gun at Art, and then stating Art I am going to kill you. The facts demonstrate that Charlie intended to assault Art and therefore the intent will transfer.Immediate ApprehensionAssault requires that the contact apprehended be immediate or imminent. Bill was walking in close proximity to Art, and therefore it can be reasonably inferred that when a firearm was pointed in his direction that this constituted a potentially immediate threat to Bills life, which, in turn, Bill would have responded to with fear or apprehension. This is especially true after Bill was moved into the line of fire between Art and Charlie. The element of Immediate Apprehension is met.Harmful or Offensive Contact Lastly, the contact apprehended must have been of a harmful or offensive nature. Without question pointed a firearm at an individual is both potentially harmful and offensive. The harmful or offensive contact element is met. Charlies DefenseCharlie will argue that he did not mean to assault Bill, but instead meant to assault Art. This will fail due to the transfer of intent. Bill will further counter and state that Charlie pulled the trigger after he had moved into the way and therefore Charlie should have known that his actions would have caused reasonable apprehension or fear in Bill. Did Charlie Inflict Intentional Emotional Distress to Bill?IIED requires that there be intentional or reckless infliction of extreme and outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional or mental distress.IntentTo satisfy intent Bill must demonstrate that Charlie purposefully or recklessly inflicted the harm. Charlie purposefully pointed a gun in the direction of Bill and also fired it in his direction. Charlie meant to shoot, and therefore meant to inflict harm. Intent has been satisfied.Extreme and Outrageous ConductThe conduct at hand must be extreme and outrageous. The discharge of a firearm in an attempt to kill another person is certainly extreme and undoubtedly outrageous. This is beyond the norms for society and it is not how any normal person acts. Charlies actions were both extreme and outrageous.Sever Emotional DistressIIED requires that the individual who suffered the harm have experienced severe emotional or mental distress. Bill, during the shooting and after, was horrified that he was almost killed or injured. Bill needed counseling by a psychologist afterwards. Bill has likely proven he suffered severe emotional distress stemming from Charlie discharging a firearm near Bill.Bill was Emotionally Injured by CharlieBecause Bill suffered extreme emotional distress that required counseling and this counseling stems from the incident where Charlie shot at Bill Charlie will likely be found to have intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Bill. Charlies ClaimsCharlie Battered by ArtBattery to Charlie by Art requires that Art have committed intentional harmful or offensive contact and that the contact was made. IntentionalIntent requires that defendant intended his actions. After being shot at, Art picked up the gun tossed by Charlie and discharged it Charlie who was running away. Art decided to: pick up the gun, point the gun at Charlie, and fire the gun in Charlies direction all actions that required intent. The element of intent is clearly demonstrated. Therefore, Art intended to Batter Charlie.Harmful or Offensive ContactIn order for Charlie to prevail on a claim for battery, he must prove that the contact was harmful and offensive. Discharge of a firearm is considered dangerous and deadly and therefore satisfies the element of harmful and offensive. Charlie will only need to demonstrate that he was hit by the bullet to satisfy this element. Contact MadeTo conclude a claim for battery, actual contact must have resulted. When Art discharged the firearm at Charlie, Charlie was struck in the leg by the bullet. Actual contact resulted.Charlie was Battered by ArtBecause Art intentionally discharged a firearm at Charlie while he was running away and Charlie was then struck in the leg resulting in harmful contact, Art will be found liable for the battery. Arts DefensesArt will most likely attempt to argue that his action was taken in self-defense. Self-defense requires that reasonable force may be used if that person reasonably believes force is necessary to protect against harm.Reasonable ForceGiven the situation, Art will argue that because lethal force was utilized against him and equal and proportionate amount of force was necessary to meet and or/exceed the level of the threat. Charlie utilized lethal force and thus a response with lethal force is reasonable.Reasonably BelievesIn order to move forward on the Self-defense claim, Art will be required to prove that he had a reasonable belief that the reasonable use of force was necessary. Art will argue that he was in fear for his life and safety, and was also in fear for any further attack by Charlie. A jury will likely give merit to this claim and find that a reasonable person could have believed that lethal force was necessary.Necessary to Protect Against HarmLastly, to prevail on the claim of self-defense, Art will need to demonstrate that he believed that his use of force was necessary to protect against harm. Art will argue that he was still afraid for his life and safety having just suffered a lethal force encounter; Charlie will argue that he was running away and did not pose a threat to Art any longer. Charlies counter argument will most likely be found sound and Art will possibly be found guilty of battery.