Assault, Battery & False Imprisonment

These torts protect the most basic interest of all — the security of the person: freedom from being threatened, touched, or confined without lawful justification.

Assault, Battery & Mayhem

• Assault — an act that makes the plaintiff reasonably apprehend the immediate application of force (raising a fist, pointing a weapon). No contact is needed. Mere words generally do not amount to assault, but words plus a threatening gesture do.
• Battery — the actual application of force to another, however slight, without lawful justification (the punch that follows the raised fist). “The least touching of another in anger is a battery” (Cole v. Turner).
• Mayhem — an aggravated battery that deprives a person of a limb or member useful in defence.

Assault and battery are distinct torts: the threat and the touch are two separate wrongs.

False Imprisonment

False imprisonment is the total restraint of a person’s liberty, without lawful justification, for any time however short.

flowchart TD
    A["False Imprisonment requires…"]:::root
    A --> B["TOTAL restraint of liberty<br/>(a reasonable escape route = NOT imprisonment)"]:::leaf
    A --> C["WITHOUT lawful justification"]:::leaf
    A --> D["Knowledge by the plaintiff NOT required<br/>(Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation)"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

• The restraint must be complete — if there is a reasonable means of escape, it is not imprisonment (Bird v. Jones, 1845 — being stopped from crossing a bridge by one route, with another way open, was not false imprisonment).
• The plaintiff need not have known he was imprisoned at the time (Meering v. Grahame-White Aviation).
• The restraint may be by a physical barrier or by an assertion of authority the plaintiff submits to.

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: At a meeting, B turns unruly; a resolution to eject him is passed; B advances on the chairman A with clenched fists but is stopped by the warden before reaching him. Has B committed a tort?

I — Issue

Whether B’s advance on A with clenched fists, stopped before any contact, amounts to an actionable assault.

R — Rule

Assault is an act causing a reasonable apprehension of imminent force; actual contact is not required (that would be battery). Stephens v. Myers (1830) — on nearly identical facts (an advancing, fist-clenched man stopped before reaching the chairman) — held it an assault, because the defendant had the apparent present ability to carry out the threat.

A — Analysis

The decoy is that B never touched A, suggesting no tort. But assault is complete the moment A reasonably fears imminent force; the want of contact only means there was no battery. B was advancing with clenched fists and the apparent present ability to strike, stopped only by the warden’s intervention — precisely Stephens v. Myers. A’s apprehension of immediate violence was entirely reasonable.

C — Conclusion

B has committed the tort of assault. Advancing on A with clenched fists and the apparent ability to strike, stopped only by a third party, is an assault even though no blow landed (Stephens v. Myers).

📄 Get all 5 units — Notes + Question Bank (₹199) with 50+ solved problems and 16-mark essay blueprints. Buy the bundle · Free Unit 1 sample · All Law of Torts topics