In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either

general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an

immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is
considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual
ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. In Criminal Law
an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific
intent to cause physical injury.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Comparison to battery
2 Elements
3 Defenses
4 References
5 See also
Comparison to battery[edit]
As distinguished from battery, assault need not involve actual contact; it only
needs intent and the resulting apprehension. However, assault requires more
than words alone. For example, wielding a knife while shouting threats could
be construed as assault if an apprehension was created. A battery can occur
without a preceding assault, such as if a person is struck in the back of the
head. Fear is not required, only anticipation of subsequent battery.

An assault can be an attempted battery.

Elements[edit]
Three elements must be established in order to establish tortuous assault:
first, the plaintiff apprehended immediate physical contact, second, the
plaintiff had reasonable apprehension (the requisite state of mind) and third,
the defendant's act of interference was intentional (the defendant intended
the resulting apprehension). But intent for purposes of civil assault can be
either general or specific. Specific intent means that when the defendant
acted, he or she intended to cause apprehension of a harmful or unwanted
contact. General intent means that the defendant knew with substantial
certainty that the action would put someone in apprehension of a harmful or

unwanted contact.

While the law varies by jurisdiction, contact is often defined as harmful if it

objectively intends to injure, disfigure, impair, or cause pain.

The act is deemed offensive if it would offend a reasonable persons sense of

personal dignity.

While imminence is judged objectively and varies widely on the facts, it

generally suggests there is little to no opportunity for intervening acts.

Lastly, the state of apprehension should be differentiated from the general

state of fear, as apprehension requires only that the person be aware of the
imminence of the harmful or offensive act.

Defenses[edit]
Assault can be justified in situations of self-defense or defense of a third party
where the act was deemed reasonable. It can also be justified in the context
of a sport where consent can often be implied.