This case, Tuberville v Savage (1669), is a historic decision from the England and Wales High Court (King’s Bench Division) addressing the law of assault. Here’s a brief summary of the key points and principles of the case.
Court: King’s Bench Division
Citation: (1669) 1 Mod Rep 3, [1669] EWHC KB J25, 86 ER 684
Parties: Tuberville (plaintiff) vs. Savage (defendant)
Date: 30 January 1669
Type of Action: Assault, battery, and wounding.
Facts (Tuberville v Savage)
The plaintiff allegedly put his hand on his sword and stated, “If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you.” The court examined whether this constituted an assault.
Issue
Does the act of putting a hand on a weapon, accompanied by the statement mentioned, amount to an assault?
Court’s Decision in Tuberville v Savage
The court held that there was no assault. The reasoning was as follows:
1. Intention: For an act to qualify as an assault, there must be an intent to create an apprehension of imminent harm. In this case, the plaintiff explicitly stated that he would not act (“if it were not assize-time”), which negated any immediate threat.
2. Act: The court emphasized that the intention and the act must coincide to constitute an assault. While Tuberville’s actions might have appeared threatening, the accompanying words negated any intent to carry out the threat.
3. Examples in Judgment
• Striking someone without intent to harm (e.g., in conversation) does not constitute an assault.
• Threatening actions, such as holding up a hand in a menacing way without any accompanying words, could amount to an assault.
Principle Established
An assault requires both:
1. An act that creates reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.
2. An intention to cause such apprehension.
In this case, the plaintiff’s words negated the intent to harm, so no assault occurred.
Significance
This case remains a foundational authority on the law of assault, illustrating how courts evaluate the combination of actions and intent. It is also notable for its contribution to the principle that words can clarify or negate the meaning/intent of actions in legal disputes.
List of references:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1669/J25.html
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM TORT LAW: