Irac by Using Irac System Art Bill

IRAC

BY USING IRAC SYSTEM Art Bill leaving work afternoon approached Charlie, wearing a mask carrying a gun. Charlie, suspected Art affair Charlie's wife, approached ten feet Art Bill, aimed gun Art, Art, I kill

The legal issue at hand between Art and Charlie is that of assault and battery. The tort of assault "is usually defined as any intentional act that is meant to cause a reasonable apprehension of imminent and harmful contact" while the tort of battery is "when one person (the offender) make[s] intentional and harmful or offensive contact with another person (the victim)" (Assault and battery as personal injury claims, 2013, Nolo). Art would argue that Charlie's threat to him with a gun and subsequent firing satisfies the condition of both apprehension of harm and actual harmful contact. Bill could argue that, by virtue of being an innocent bystander forcibly placed in harm's way, he has a case against Charlie for assault and for emotional damage (battery). Bill could also argue, however, that Art's use of him as a shield was both an assault and a battery by virtue of its physical nature and the likely harm that would result. Because Art fired upon Charlie while Charlie was retreating, Charlie could make a case against Art for his injuries.

Rule

In proving a case of assault "no actual physical injury is required in most states, so lawsuits for assault and battery can vary widely in terms of damage awards" (Assault and battery as personal injury claims, 2013, Nolo). Thus, not only would Art have a case against Charlie because he was shot and Charlie would have a potential case against Art because he was shot while retreating: Bill also has grounds to sue based upon the potential risk of harm he incurred when he was shot by Charlie and being used as a shield by Art.

In all four cases, two of the three standard defenses against assault and battery do not apply. One defense is consent, or the idea that "the victim agreed to the possibility of being hurt," such as when a plaintiff signs a waiver to participate in a football league and is injured (Assault and battery as personal injury claims, 2013, Nolo). None of the parties clearly consented to their roles as victims. The second standard defense is that of privilege, such as when a police officer makes a "reasonable and appropriate use of force" as part of his duties (Assault and battery as personal injury claims, 2013, Nolo). The third defense, that of self-defense is applicable to certain aspects of this case: "If someone accused of assault and/or battery was responding appropriately to a threat of harm, then a lawsuit for assault and/or battery probably won't succeed" (Assault and battery as personal injury claims, 2013, Nolo).

Application

In the case of Art v. Charlie, Art was clearly the victim as Charlie intended to harm him and did so. In the case of Bill v. Art, Art would likely argue self-defense -- that he used Bill to protect himself, without intending to harm Bill. However, Bill would argue that there was no guarantee he would not be harmed when Art dragged him into the line of fire. Art may have been afraid, but his response was not reasonable under the circumstances. Similarly in his case against Charlie, Bill would argue that by firing at Charlie, even if he did not intend to cause harm to Bill, Charlie should have known that Bill was in harm's way. Finally, in the case of Charlie v. Art, Art would likely argue he was acting in self-defense and attempting to protect himself while Charlie would point out that he was retreating at the time.