Also known as: reasonable apprehension of bodily injury · apprehension of harm · fear of bodily harm
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An objective standard used to decide whether the owner of a future interest may obtain judicial relief against acts or omissions by the owner of a present interest. It exists when those acts or omissions, viewed in light of their character and the substantiality of the future interest, would cause a reasonable person to fear harm to that interest.
Charge Nurse Ana Lopez told Nurse Daniel Kim across the break room that she would slam him against the medication cart during the next overnight shift if he questioned her orders again. Lopez stayed in place and made no move toward Kim. Kim later sued Lopez for assault. Because the statement described only possible future contact rather than an immediate touching, Kim did not experience reasonable apprehension of bodily harm at that moment.
Dr. Michael Lee stepped close to Nurse Ana Diaz in a crowded hallway, held a used syringe inches from her face, and shouted that he should jab it into her. Diaz became terrified that contact would occur at once. Lee intended to create that immediate fear, so Diaz experienced reasonable apprehension of bodily harm sufficient for an assault claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Judith told technician Sean at a remote wind-farm substation that she would throw him against live high-voltage equipment if he refused to load cables. Judith stayed several feet away, displayed no weapon, and made no advance. Sean later reported that he did not believe the harm would occur immediately, so he did not form reasonable apprehension of bodily harm at the time of the statement.
No. Assault requires reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. A statement that describes only possible contact at a later time, without any present move toward the plaintiff, does not create the required apprehension.
Yes, when the words are accompanied by circumstances showing an immediate ability and apparent intent to carry out the threat. Proximity, tone, and the nature of any object involved can turn spoken threats into actionable apprehension.
The plaintiff must show both that the defendant intended to create the apprehension and that the plaintiff was in fact placed in that apprehension. The focus remains on whether the conduct would cause a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position to apprehend imminent contact.
…In fact, he discarded the abandonment theory at the hearing.[^maj-3] Nor did the officer ever seriously suggest that he was in fear of bodily harm and that he searched Sibron in self-protection to find weapons.[^maj-4] The prosecutor's theory at the hearing was that Patrolman Martin had probable cause to believe that Sibron was in…