I de S et ux v. W de S

1348.

Facts

Defendant bangs on tavern door with hatchet. Tavern keeper’s wife tells him that he cannot buy any wine. Hits hatchet into door, narrowly missing wife. No physical harm was done to the wife.

Issue

Has an act of bodily trespass been done if no physical harm was done to the body?

Arguments for Both Parties

Plaintiff states that there was harm done. Defendant states that there was no harm done.

Holding

The court states that the defendant caused harm because he meant to act in an offensive manner and threatened to cause real harm to the plaintiff. In other words, he assaulted her and that an assault is grounds for harm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s