MATS UNIVERSITY

SUBJECT
Law of Torts

SUBMITTED TO
SHUBHAM SINGH

PREPARED BY
SMITA HOTA
LL.B (SEMESTER 1st)

TOPIC
[ Assault ]
What is a Tort?
The word misdeed has been gotten from "tortum" is a Latin expression which means wind.
The law of misdeed comprises of unjust demonstrations by which the transgressors
disregards some legitimate privileges vested in someone else. The law forces an obligation
to regard the legitimate privileges vested in the citizenry and the individual making break of
that obligation is said to have done the illegitimate demonstration. Infringement might be
because of deliberate demonstrations, break of obligation or infringement of law.
The party who has submitted a misdeed is known as tortfeasor. At the point when a
tortfeasor bring about misdeed responsibility, which implies that they need to remunerate the
casualty for the mischief which has brought about by them. As such, the tortfeasor should
pay harms in the event that he is found "obligated" or found liable for an individual's wounds.
The law of Tort in India has advanced from the Law of misdeeds in the UK which is most
famously known as "Judge Made Law" and the law of misdeed doesn't come from a rule and
is uncodified. Notwithstanding this, it has existed for a long time, albeit the quantity of
instances of misdeed have declined. The quantity of instances of misdeed or misdeed case
is less when contrasted with the instances of misdeed documented in Britain and the United
States. The Indian law of misdeed got its shape later the rule of law of misdeed created in
the UK. The vast majority of the milestone decisions of misdeed in India depends on the
decisions of House of Lords/courts in England. In India, the misdeed cases are attempted in
common courts and the help granted incorporates harms via money related remuneration or
a request for order or compensation. The law of Tort serves two fundamental, normal
targets:

1. Compensation to the victim for any harm resulting from a breach of defence.
2. Discouraging the rescuer from repeating the violation in the future.

Examples of Torts
Some common examples of torts include:
 1. Negligence-related claims.
2. Civil assault/civil battery.
3. Wrongful death claims.
4. Trespassing.
5. Products liability and dangerous product.
6. Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Assault
In custom-based law, attack is a misdeed, a demonstration of the respondent which
causes to the offended party sensible dread of the curse of a battery on him by the litigant.
At the point when the respondent makes his demonstration by an anxiety in the brain of
the offended party that he will submit battery against the offended party, some
unacceptable of attack is finished. Some unacceptable comprises of an endeavor to cause
damage rather than the mischief being caused in this way. In attack charges should
incorporate direct that is hostile which is hostile or makes someone else the apprehension
about their wellbeing. This obviously implies that one can be at fault for attack regardless
of whether he/she didn't actually hurt the person in question. On account of R. v. S.
George, the pointing of stacked weapon to another is an attack. Assuming the gun isn't
stacked, then, at that point, even it could be an attack, whenever pointed at such a
distance that it might cause injury. assuming that an individual advances the way of taking
steps to utilize power , then, at that point, there is attack. This was chosen on account of
Stephens v. Myers.

Elements of Assault
If one or more elements have not been satisfied then It can be a defense to an assault
charge. Elements of the crime of assault are:

An act or conduct intended to created: To prove a criminal attack, the defendants’

behaviour must be motivated to create a situation of fear or danger in the victim’s mind.
Accident acts do not include allegations of assault.

A reasonable apprehension: Further, the victim must reasonably believe that the
defendant’s conduct will harm or humiliate him. The victim must understand the
defendant’s potentially harmful or offensive acts.

Of imminent harm: The victim’s fear must be a direct response to a threat that is
imminent. Future threats, such as “I will beat you tommorrow”, will not result in assault
charges. In addition, there must be some kind of perceived physical threat to the victim in
the loss; For this reason, words by themselves generally do not constitute an attack.
 It is believed that the defendant’s actions would cause physical danger or abusive
behaviour to the victim. Thus, the pretence of kicking or punching the victim may be an
attack, as will attempt to spit on the victim (aggressive behaviour).

All of the above elements must be present and the evidence must be supported with
evidence if found guilty for the attack.

It can be difficult to prove whether the defendant actually intended the attack. Similarly,

Civil assault Criminal assault

In civil assault, to sue the If the respondent is convicted, he may be imprisoned,

respondent for the full extent and may also have to pay a fine and reinstatement.
of his loss, including lost But the fine would be paid to the government, and
Meaning
earnings and pain and restitution would most likely cover only the medical
suffering of the past and bills, not your non-economic losses such as pain and
future. suffering stemming from the incident.

Procedure

In civil assault case, a

District Attorney is not
After an attack, the victim should report to the police.
involved. The matter is
The police will then make an arrest, take action on the
brought by the plaintiff. The
alleged attacker and refer the case to the District
plaintiff has more control in
Attorney.
the case of civil assault.

When the plaintiff wins, the defendant will not go to

A win for the District
jail, but will have to pay financial compensation.
Attorney, results in jail term,
a fine, or both.
Punishment
 judges often spend a lot of time determining whether a defendant’s actions are considered
harmful or abusive. In determining this, they will consider what an average person may
perceive as harmful or aggressive.

Assault Battery

Battery includes intentional application of

Definition Assault is the attempt to commit battery. force to another person without any
lawful justification.

Physical contact is needed.

Important Threat of violence is enough for assault.

aspect No physical contact is necessary.

· There should be use of force.

Create reasonable apprehension in the
Principle plaintiff’s mind that immediate force will
also be used. · The same should be, without any lawful
justification.

Objective To threaten a person. To cause harm.

Nature Not necessarily physical. Must be physical.

Difference between Assault and Battery

Difference between Criminal and Civil Assault

Legal defenses on charges of Assault

As with other types of criminal charges, there may be some defenses to assault charges.
This will depend on each individual case, as well as other factors such as state law. Faults
commonly charged with assault charges include:

1. Self-defense: This could be a guard on the off chance that the respondent was carrying
on of self-protection. They should just utilize the sum or show of power that is proper in
the circumstance and with respect to the power being utilized against them.

2. Intoxication: sometimes, inebriation can be a lawful guard, particularly in situations

where inebriation influences an individual's capacity to act deliberately.

3. Coercion: This may be a defense if the defendant was forced to attack under threat of
harm (for example, if they are being held at gunpoint and for assault at the behest of
someone).

4. Lack of proof / proof: As stated above, if the elements of proof are not found or
supported with the correct evidence, it can serve as a legal defense.
Many other types of avoidance may exist depending on the circumstances.

Cases
Fagan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Fagan was sitting in his car when he was approached by a police officer who asked him
to take the vehicle. Fagan did so, overturned his car and rolled over a police officer’s leg.
The officer forcefully asked him to remove the car from his leg, to which Fagan swore him
and refused to take the vehicle and shut down the engine. Fagan was convicted of
assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Fagan later appealed the decision.
The court held that, Although assault is an independent crime and is to be treated as such,
for practical purposes today, assault is generally synonymous with battery. On this basis,
it was held that Fagan’s crime was not the refusal to move the car but that having driven
on to the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual
act of battery. This meant that actus Reus and mens rea were present and as such, an
assault was committed. Fagan’s conviction was upheld.

R. V. Constanza
A man was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague.
For a period of almost two years, the man followed the women home from work, made
numerous silent phone calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her
house without consent, and wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times.
Following these actions, she received two additional letters with threatening language.
She was soon diagnosed by a doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due
to apprehended fear caused by the man’s actions and letters. A man was convicted of
assault occasioning actual bodily harm of a female ex-colleague. For a period of almost
two years, the man followed the women home from work, made numerous silent phone
calls, wrote her over 800 letters, drove past her house, visited her house without consent,
and wrote offensive words on her house’s door three times. Following these actions, she
received two additional letters with threatening language. She was soon diagnosed by a
doctor as suffering from clinical depression and anxiety due to apprehended fear caused
by the man’s actions and letters.

Remedies
Action for damages- harms Whenever the offended party has been unfairly confined, he
can continually carry an activity to guarantee harms. Remuneration might be guaranteed for
injury to the freedom as well as for shame and embarrassment which might be caused
consequently. As indicated by McGregor on harms, the subtleties of how the harms
functioned in bogus detainment are not many: for the most part, it's anything but a monetary
misfortune or of pride and is passed on to the jury and their tact. The standard heads for
harm would seem, by all accounts, to be the injury to freedom, i.e., the deficiency of time
thought about principally from a non-monetary perspective, and the injury to sentiments, i.e.,
the poise, mental affliction, shame and embarrassment with any orderly loss of societal
position.
Self help– assistance This is the cure which is accessible to an individual who while he is
as yet under detainment as opposed to hanging tight for legitimate activity and obtaining his
delivery consequently.
Habeas Corpus– –It is speedier solution for getting the arrival of an unfairly confined.
individual. Such a writ might be given either by the Supreme Court under Article 32 or by a
High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution. By this writ individual keeping is needed
to create the confined individual under the watchful eye of the court and legitimize the
detainment. Assuming the court observes the confinement is with no or sensible ground, it
will arrange that the individual kept ought to be quickly delivered.

It is just possible that the person wrongfully detained may have been set free by the time
the writ of habeas corpus is disposed off. The court hearing the petition may grant
compensation as ancillary relief in such cases . in the case of Rudal Shah v. State of
Bihar and Bhim Singh v State of J&K, the Supreme Court granted such compensation in
writs of habeas corpus.
Conclusion
Attack is an endeavored offense, the law is expected to forestall conceivable battery by
rebuffing conduct that arrives in a risky manner to get battery. Likewise with most
endeavored wrongdoings, an unmistakable line can't be drawn between a criminal assault
and direct that is only an assault planning. There ought to be a goal to cause hurt, yet it
adequately isn't assuming that it makes the chance of harm or the risk of battery in a
contorted future. All things considered, the plan should be removed from fast approaching
risk, some obvious demonstration that jeopardizes the battery. Subsequently, words or aims
don't establish simple assault.