The Parking Lot Fist Threat

Question:

Mary is walking alone in a parking lot at night when John approaches her with a clenched fist, yelling, “I’m going to knock you out!” John stops about five feet away from Mary, raises his fist in the air, and glares at her. Mary, terrified, runs to her car and locks the doors. John then walks away without ever touching her. Is Mary likely to succeed if she sues John for assault?

Baseline Response

Issue:
The issue is whether John’s actions created a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in Mary, thereby constituting assault under the principles set forth in Cullison v. Medley.

Rule:
In Cullison v. Medley, the court held that assault occurs when one intentionally acts in a way that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another. The key element is that the plaintiff experiences a “touching of the mind,” meaning that the fear or apprehension of contact is sufficient, even without physical touch. The apprehension must be one that would arise in the mind of a reasonable person, and damages can be awarded for the mental distress caused by this apprehension.

Application:
Here, John’s conduct mirrors the facts in Cullison v. Medley. By raising his fist and yelling that he was going to harm Mary, John created a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm in her mind. Similar to how the Medleys’ threats and display of a gun caused Cullison to fear for his safety, John’s verbal threat and aggressive posture would naturally instill fear in Mary that she was about to be struck. John’s threat, combined with the clenched fist, is comparable to the gun in the Cullison case, which was never drawn but still caused apprehension.

Even though John did not physically touch Mary, the tort of assault was complete once Mary’s mental peace was disturbed, just as Cullison’s mental peace was disturbed when the Medleys surrounded him with threatening words and gestures. Like Cullison, who feared imminent harm despite no physical contact, Mary reasonably feared that she was about to be hit based on John’s aggressive behavior.

Counterarguments:
John might argue, as the Medleys could have, that he did not actually harm Mary or make physical contact. However, under Cullison v. Medley, physical contact is not necessary for assault; the creation of apprehension is sufficient. John could also argue that his stopping five feet away reduced the immediacy of the threat. However, as in Cullison, the perception of immediate harm had already been created, and a reasonable person in Mary’s position would still have feared imminent harmful contact.

Conclusion:
Based on the principles in Cullison v. Medley, Mary is likely to succeed in a claim against John for assault. John’s actions caused a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact, and the tort of assault was complete when Mary’s mental peace was disturbed, just as it was in Cullison’s case.