Western Union v. Hill

[dkast]

Has anyone read this case yet, if so, did they see an issue concerning the conditional aspect of the alleged assault by Sapp?

The case book version of the decision seems extremely edited, the Court never analizes the immediate apprehension or fear element based on the condition that the wife "come around the table for some petting and loving".

The Court never stipulates whether the facts in the case consititute an assault or not.

She can avoid the apprehension or fear of an imminent unwanted intended contact by Sapp by merely not going around the counter. This act also does not inhibit her free will in the sense that she
does not have a right, obligation or need to go behind the counter.

The only other consideration is whether the placement of the condition, in and of itself, is an assault. The placement and her thought of the condition, which she does not have to abide by, can be construed as causing the apprehension, is it imminent?

It would not be imminent if she did not go behind the counter.

The condition is expressed quite clearly, and the avoidance of going around the counter should not have put her in apprehension of an imminent unwanted harmful or offensive contact.

I have too much work to do for my civ pro class to deal with this
anymore; but, if someone knows more about the case please let me know.

I'm finding law school to be a bit annoying in that you can not get into the true substantive nature of the cases. This requires an extreme amount of time and an in depth analysis of each case.

I can't seem to help myself in the sense that when i read a case I tend to analize it to the 10th degree.

Whatever, i'm going to take a break, drink a beer and relax.

[jimmyjohn]

you need to relax.

[dkast]

lol, i'm quite relaxed.

I understand your point.

If i'm going to expend some type of effort on a particular case, I would really like to go all out on it .

Regardless, i;m just going to read the primers on Contracts, Civ Pro, Torts and ace my classes.

Relaxing is beauty, in and of itself.

[jimmyjohn]

good man.

[Carlos]

Has anyone read this case yet, if so, did they see an issue concerning the conditional aspect of the alleged assault by Sapp?

The case book version of the decision seems extremely edited, the Court never analizes the immediate apprehension or fear element based on the condition that the wife "come around the table for some petting and loving".

The Court never stipulates whether the facts in the case consititute an assault or not.

She can avoid the apprehension or fear of an imminent unwanted intended contact by Sapp by merely not going around the counter. This act also does not inhibit her free will in the sense that she
does not have a right, obligation or need to go behind the counter.

The only other consideration is whether the placement of the condition, in and of itself, is an assault. The placement and her thought of the condition, which she does not have to abide by, can be construed as causing the apprehension, is it imminent?

It would not be imminent if she did not go behind the counter.

The condition is expressed quite clearly, and the avoidance of going around the counter should not have put her in apprehension of an imminent unwanted harmful or offensive contact.

I have too much work to do for my civ pro class to deal with this
anymore; but, if someone knows more about the case please let me know.

I'm finding law school to be a bit annoying in that you can not get into the true substantive nature of the cases. This requires an extreme amount of time and an in depth analysis of each case.

I can't seem to help myself in the sense that when i read a case I tend to analize it to the 10th degree.

Whatever, i'm going to take a break, drink a beer and relax.

I haven't read it from the casebook yet, but based on what I've pulled from a case brief I found on the web (I know, not the same thing), the condition in and of itself is definitely not an assault, but merely a precondition or element of it, along with battery.

As for the whether its imminent or not, I think one must accept what the lower court determines are the facts, only the jury of the trial court will have seen and heard the witnesses, so what they determine is immiment factwise is accepted here by the appeals court.

Take what I'm writing with a grain of salt. I'm not in law school yet, but I thought I'd just try to help out, since I think analyzing cases is fascinating.

[chaser]

This is a very interesting case, because if the plaintiff establishes the "assault," she (or I guess her husband) breaks the "causal nexus" of Respondeat superior; because "illegal" behavior is almost always considered to be "the servant 'frolicking' outside the scope of his duties."

In other words, if the plaintiff establishes assault, she ipso facto must go after the more "shallow pocketed" employee.

One strategy that might modernly be employed is to attack Western Union on a "negligence" theory--on the theory that they were negligent in exposing the public to the employee due to failure to pre-screen his employment for "red flags" like the alcohol or (alleged) sexual assault problems; or that they were negligent in not giving him remedial treatment once he was hired and the problems developed.  (If, in fact, such evidence exists.)

An extreme case that would demonstrate my proposed strategy would be Dean v. Oppenheim Davidson, Alameda Superior Court No. 809231-1 (2000); where the defendants hired a convicted felon to do in-home carpet care, and he robbed and stabbed the female customer.

There is more information on this case at:

http://www.abika.com/Reports/employmentscreening.htm

(Of course, this page is trying to sell employers "employment screening" on the theory that they could potentially save $9.3 million.)

In a purely metaphysical sense, what I think really happened in the principal case is "Interference with a Contractual Relationship."  I.e., the lady came in for a "legal purpose" which was to get her clock fixed, and the tortfeasor attempted to "block" the legal contract and turn it into a meritricious, illegal contract for sex.  ("Illegal" in the sense that the courts won't enforce the contract.) 

Of course, then you are going after the "shallow pocketed" clerk, and also that tort usually goes the other way, e.g., "Western Union v. Boycotters with Signs," or something.