Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill

University:
Toronto Metropolitan University
Course:
LAW 122 | Business Law
Academic year:

2020
Views:

287

Pages:

1
Author:

rehinhea0c

Western Union Telegraph Co. (D) v. Hill (P) Peyton Harris Case Brief Case Name Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill Court and Date Court of Appeals of Alabama, 1933. Procedural History Plaintiff seeking to charge defendant with assault and judgement was made on trial court for the plaintiff favor. Question Presented Does an attempt to touch in an “offensive” way constitute an assault? Trigger Facts Plaintiff called down to the office to get them to send someone to fix the digital clock. Around twenty minutes passed by and plaintiff went downstairs to ask someone for help to fix the clock. Upon coming downstairs, she was greeted by the defendant (who had consumed a few drinks) who asked what she needed help with. Plaintiff responded by asking for help with the digital clock and the defendant stated he would only get help if she let him “give her some love and pets”. Plaintiff claimed that the defendant reached for her shoulder to bring her in. Defendant was behind a large counter while reaching for the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Argument Plaintiff did not give argument other than foregoing evidence to prove assault. Defendant’s Argument Defendant argued he could not have even laid a hand on the plaintiff due to the massive counter in his way. Rule An assault can still be committed if the defendant creates a fear to the plaintiff of an imminent battery paired with the attempt to do so. Battery includes assault but assault does not necessarily need battery to complete it. Reasoning The court reasoned that because the defendant intended to cause damages towards the plaintiff, he had committed an assault towards the plaintiff. Even if the desk was in the way, the defendant still intended to grab or touch the plaintiff. Holding Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the company was not liable for the actions of its employee and reverse on the ground that sap had not acted within the scope of his employement. Main Take-Away Even though no aggressive harmful attempt was made by the defendant, assault still stood because he attempted to make an offensive touch towards the plaintiff.