Is he liable for battery or assault? [1].
A. He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on the foot of the officer was accidental, meaning that he had no intention to cause that harm.
B. He is not liable as the act neither amounted to an attempt nor a threat to commit battery which amounts to an actionable tort of assault.
C. Raj’s crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, so he had committed the continual act of battery.
D. He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidentally drove his car on the police officer’s foot.
Answer:C
Is he liable for battery or assault? [1].
A. He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on the foot of the officer was accidental, meaning that he had no intention to cause that harm. B. He is not liable as the act neither amounted to an attempt nor a threat to commit battery which amounts to an actionable tort of assault. C. Raj’s crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on the foot of the officer and decided not to cease the act, so he had committed the continual act of battery. D. He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidentally drove his car on the police officer’s foot.