torts

Koffman v. Garnett

Koffman v. Garnett
265 Va. 12, 574 S.E.2d 258 (2003)

Facts: Koffman, a 13-year-old student, was tackled by a coach in the course of a demonstration in practice. (No coach had used physical force to instruct prior to this.)

Procedure: Trial court dismissed Koffman's separate claims of assault and battery.

Issue: Did the coach commit assault? Battery?

Holding: No and yes.

Reasoning: Koffman could not have known that this was going to happen until the battery was in progress, so it is not an assault. It could have been a battery, depending on whether the jury finds that he consented to being tackled by coaches as well as the players.

Cullison v. Medley

Cullison v. Medley
570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991)

Facts: Cullison flirted with Sandy Medley. Later that evening, Sandy and her mother, father, brother, and brother-in-law showed up at Cullison's door, threatening him and telling him to leave Sandy alone. Father, Ernest, was on crutches but had a holster with a gun on his thigh; Mother, Doris, kept her hand in her pocket but implied that she had a pistol as well. Ernest never drew the gun but he certainly threatened to.

Procedure: Trial court entered a summary judgment for the Medleys; Cullison appealed. Appeals court affirmed, saying that since Ernest never removed his gun from its holster and never explicitly threatened to shoot Cullison, it was not an assault.

Issue: Did Ernest commit an assault (by the standards of summary judgment)?

Holding: Yes.

Reasoning: "It is the right to be free from the apprehension of a battery which is protected by the tort action which we call an assault." "The tort is complete with the invasion of the plaintiff's mental peace." (Court also held that you can recover for emotional trauma with an assault claim.)