Assault and battery liability in a three-party confrontation

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).

Conclusion

There is clearly a case of assault in Art v. Charlie, given Charlie's intention and subsequent firing at his victim. There is also a case in Bill v. Charlie, given that Charlie recklessly fired at Bill, even though he intended to hit Art and Bill only sustained psychological harm. Bill also has a case against Art, even though Art would likely argue mitigating circumstances (he was not thinking clearly because his life was under threat). In the case of Charlie v. Art, Art seemed to be acting more in rage at his wound and not in self-defense because Charlie was retreating (although once again he could argue mitigating circumstances and say he was not thinking rationally at the time).

Reference

Assault and battery as personal injury claims. (2013). Nolo. Retrieved:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/assault-battery-personal-injury-claims-32262.html