Citation. Western Union Tel. Co. V. Hill, 67 F.2d 487, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4518 (5th Cir. Ala. Nov. 8, 1933)


You are watching: Western union telegraph co. v. hill

Powered by
CitationWestern Union Tel. Co. V. Hill, 67 F.2d 487, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4518 (5th Cir. Ala. Nov. 8, 1933)

Brief truth Summary. Defendant’s employee routinely noted repairs to the clock located in Plaintiff’s business. ~ above one occasion once Plaintiff’s wife requested that he fix the clock, Defendant’s employee allegedly offered to deal with the clock in exchange for sexual favors and unsuccessfully reached out come grab her. When Plaintiff sued for assault, Defendant refuse the allegations and argued the physical proof showed he can not have reached Plaintiff’s wife.

Synopsis of rule of Law. For attack to occur, there should be one intentional and unlawful offer or attempt to touch another’s person in a harmful or offensive manner such the it creates a well-founded apprehension of brewing battery. One accused of attack must likewise appear to have the present capacity to go the battery if not prevented.


See more: Michelin Ltx M/S2 275/55R20, Shop Michelin Ltx M/S2 Tires

Facts. Plaintiff sued Defendant for attack on the grounds the its employee made offensive remarks to his wife and also attempted to grab her when she came into its store. Defendant’s employee admitted to having actually been mildly intoxicated in ~ the time, but denies Plaintiff’s wife’s variation of events. The physics evidence additionally suggested the Defendant’s employee would have actually been i can not qualify to have the ability to touch Plaintiff’s wife as described. The psychological court uncovered that whether attack had to be committed was a question for the jury, who uncovered for Plaintiff.

Issue. Go the attempt court err in submitting the question of whether attack had emerged to the jury?

Held. No. The Court discovered the trial judge appropriately submitted the question to the jury.* when the evidence shows that a party could have made an initiative to with out and touch another in an offensive, unwanted manner and may or may not have had actually the apparent ability to perform so in ~ the time, whether an assault has occurred is a question for a jury.* The Court likewise found, however, the the employee was acting past the border of his employed if he committed assault and Defendant was thus not liable for his actions. The Court reversed the verdict on this ground.Discussion. Defendant was attempting to protect against liability on the ground that its employee could not have succeeded in touching Plaintiff’s wife, also had that tried. Together the Court explains, together an debate is greatly irrelevant to the tort that assault. Assault requires just that the victim be put in apprehension of brewing battery. As a corollary come this rule, there might be part circumstances when no reasonable person might possibly apprehend unavoidable battery. Because that example, the alleged assailant may have been so far away indigenous the party claiming attack that it would certainly be difficult to reasonably believe battery to be imminent. Or the alleged assailant can have been in such one obviously weakened or vulnerable position the such a belief would be impossible. However, once it simply appears that really battery could have been complicated or unlikely, it is for the jury to decide whether the party claiming assault could have had actually the requisite apprehension of impending battery.