Allen v. Hannaford
1926 Wash. LEXIS 1097, 244 P. 700, 138 Wash. 423 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person commits an assault by acting in a manner that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact in another, regardless of the actor's secret intentions or actual ability to inflict harm, so long as they have the apparent ability to do so from the victim's perspective.
Facts:
- For approximately one year, Allen was a tenant in an apartment owned by Hannaford.
- On April 29, 1924, Allen arranged for movers to transfer her furniture to a new apartment.
- When the movers arrived, Hannaford, the landlord, appeared with a pistol.
- Hannaford threatened to shoot the movers if they attempted to remove any of Allen's belongings.
- Shortly thereafter, while standing a few feet from Allen, Hannaford pointed the pistol directly at Allen's face and threatened to shoot her.
- Hannaford claimed she was preventing the removal of the furniture because Allen owed rent, for which Hannaford believed she had a lien.
- It was not established whether the pistol Hannaford used was loaded at the time of the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen (plaintiff) sued Hannaford (defendant) in a trial court for damages resulting from an assault.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Allen for $750.
- Hannaford filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, both of which the trial court overruled.
- The trial court entered a final judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Hannaford (appellant) appealed the judgment to the reviewing appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does pointing a pistol at another person in a threatening manner constitute a civil assault if the victim does not know whether the pistol is loaded and the perpetrator has the apparent ability to cause harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Main, J.
Yes. Pointing a pistol at another in a threatening manner constitutes an assault if it creates a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim's mind, regardless of whether the weapon was actually loaded. The court reasoned that the tort of assault protects a person's right to be free from the fear of personal harm. The central element of assault is the apprehension created in the mind of the person assaulted, not the undisclosed intentions or actual capabilities of the person committing the act. Because Allen could not know whether the pistol was loaded, it was reasonable for her to fear for her life when Hannaford pointed it at her face and threatened to shoot. From Allen's perspective, Hannaford had the 'apparent ability' to carry out the threat, which is sufficient to establish an assault. The court also dismissed Hannaford's claim of a landlord's lien, citing a state statute that explicitly exempts a tenant's property in a dwelling-house.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the 'apparent ability' doctrine as the standard for civil assault in its jurisdiction, shifting the legal focus from the perpetrator's actual ability to inflict harm to the victim's reasonable perception of that ability. This decision broadens liability for assault, as a defendant can no longer use their secret inability to cause harm (e.g., an unloaded gun) as a defense, provided the victim's apprehension was reasonable. The ruling prioritizes the legal protection of an individual's mental peace and security from fear of imminent harm over the actor's subjective intent or objective capability.
