Opinion Intentional Torts

Mr McPhillen was sitting at a bar. He noticed a man bother a woman. He kept yelling and screaming at her. The woman just kept her head down and ignored him. The man went up to her and grabbed her arm. Mr. McPhillen grabbed the man and twisted his arm back and made him sit down. When he asked the women if she was ok she said "yes that is my husband".

In this case summary this represents intentional torts. I will first start with the charges that Mr. McPhillen could have brought against him by the man in the bar and his defenses.
Leroy McPhillen could be charged with assault and battery because he used both on the man in the bar. Verbal threats and physical action both were used. Mr. McPhillen also can be charged with forced imprisonment as he threatened to harm the man if he got up from the chair he put him in. Although this may seem as if the man could get up there was still the threat that he would be hit if he did.

The defenses Mr. McPhillen have are the man grabbed the woman’s wrist Mr. McPhillen used the necessary force to prevent the attack on her. He thought the woman was going to be attacked by the man because he was shouting obscenities at the woman and started approaching her.

Defense of persons: A defense to the intentional torts of assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Its elements include the use of reasonable force to defend or protect a third party from injury when the third party is threatened by an attacking force. Buckley, W & Okrent, C (2004). Torts and Personal Injury: Third Edition. Canada: Delmar Learning (p. 229)

This case would have not gone far as there was a mistake in the fact that Mr. McPhillen did not know at the time, the woman was the man’s wife.
The man’s wife could have charges brought against her husband for assault, battery, infliction of emotional distress and possibly slander. I do not believe the wife’s husband would have any defense in this case. He was drunk and inflicting all these actions as a result.
…for reckless infliction of emotional distress, intent is not essential. The tortfeasor need only know (or reasonably should know) that his or her outlandish or outrageous actions will produce emotional injury. This knowledge element acts as a substitute for intent. Buckley, W & Okrent, C (2004). Torts and Personal Injury: Third Edition. Canada: Delmar Learning (p. 112)

I believe the only person in this case that could not bring any charges was Mr. McPhillen. He actually was only protecting the woman but mistakenly so as the man was married to the woman. My thoughts are he should have asked the woman if he was bothering her first and then called the police. Now Mr. McPhillen may be facing assault and battery and trying to defend his actions. Assault and battery in this case could very well end up with the same definition as Pon Lip Chew v. Gilliland.

The use of any unlawful violence upon the person of another, with intent to injure, whatever be the means or degree of violence used, is an assault and battery. When an injury is caused by violence to the person, then intent to injure is presumed and it rests with the person inflicting the injury to show the accident or innocent intention. Pon Lip Chew v. Gilliland, 398 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Tex. 1965)

Mr. McPhillen should not have got involved at all in this little incident but what would us women do without the heros of the world.
References

Buckley, W & Okrent, C (2004). Torts and Personal Injury: Third Edition. Canada: Delmar Learning (p. 112 & 229)

Pon Lip Chew v. Gilliland, 398 S.W.2d 98, 100 (Tex. 1965)