Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc. – Case Notes


Top 4 Supplements for 1L Torts:

We need to consider two factors in Tort Liability

Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc.

Rule

Assault: A physical act | of a threatening nature| [or] an offer of corporal injury | {which} puts an individual | in reasonable fear | of imminent bodily harm

• Requires apprehension, you can batter someone without placing them in reasonable fear of imminent harm

Plaintiff has to prove lack of consent.

What if she had instead swung the camera at his head after he touched the camera.

Self defense must be of reasonable force.

Prima Facie:

at first appearance; at first view, before investigation.

plain or clear; self-evident; obvious.

Imminent: Without undue delay

Fear of imminent bodily harm, apprehension of imminent bodily harm

Cane, clothing, close to the body are considered part of the body

– Camera is a bit of a stretch. Touching the camera is like touching her body even if very gentle

Is the touching offensive to a reasonable sensibility?

The offender mut know of the sensitivity and be seeking to exploit that sensitivity

Touching the camera is not a factor in the Assault, it is the mere presence of imminent bodily harm that satisfys the assault requirement

What if woman was 6’5″ blackbelt and he was 5’2″ pipsqueak?

– Yes, still assault, because she would still be apprehensive of the physical contact.

– Must be reasonable apprehension of contact. The farther away you are when you lunge at someone, the reasonableness declines sharply

Boderline Issues

A conditional threat cannot be an assault

An asssault MUST be imminent

Must assert a reasonable apprehention

Reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm (Look to see how courts in your jurisdiction have ruled on this)

Category: Case Briefs, Torts | RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.


Start your own website with an esqjd.com Blog