Assault

MBE fact patterns hide the issue in two spots: apprehension is not fear — a confident plaintiff who could easily fend off a scrawny attacker still has a valid claim because apprehension means expectation of contact, not fright. The other tell is the “unloaded gun” trap: if the plaintiff reasonably believes the gun is loaded, the defendant’s secret inability to fire is irrelevant — apparent ability controls, not actual ability. The apprehension must be of contact to the plaintiff’s own body; fearing a contact aimed at a third party (even a family member) is not assault to the bystander.

The classic confusion is assault vs. battery: assault protects the mind (apprehension), battery protects the body (contact), so an unperceived blow from behind is battery but not assault — no apprehension. Both are intent-to-act torts, and transferred intent flows freely among them (and the other three: false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels). Don’t confuse this personal tort with trespass to land, an entry-based property tort. Memory hook: assault = anticipation, battery = blow.