## Facts

- I. de S. and his wife operated a tavern.
- One night, after the tavern had closed, W. de S. came to the tavern seeking to buy wine.
- Finding the door shut, W. de S. struck the tavern door with a hatchet in an attempt to gain entry.
- The wife leaned out of a window and told W. de S. to stop.
- After seeing her, W. de S. swung or struck with the hatchet at the wife but missed her, narrowly avoiding contact.
- The wife suffered no bodily injury and was not physically touched.
- The plaintiffs nonetheless alleged that W. de S., with force and arms, assaulted and beat the wife.

## Issues

1. Whether a trespass action for assault may lie when the defendant threatens immediate physical harm but makes no physical contact and causes no bodily injury.
2. Whether the absence of “harm done” to the body defeats liability where the plaintiff experiences reasonable fear of an imminent blow.

## Decision

- The Assizes found for the plaintiffs and rejected the view that lack of physical injury eliminates trespass liability.
- The court treated the hatchet swing that narrowly missed the wife as an actionable assault despite no completed battery.
- Judgment for the plaintiffs reversed the earlier dismissal that had rested on the inquest’s conclusion that “no harm” meant “no trespass.”

## Legal Principles

- Assault does not require physical contact or bodily injury.
- A defendant is liable for assault when intentional conduct creates reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
- The protected interest includes personal security against immediate threatened force; the apprehension of a near blow can be compensable even if the blow does not land.
- Conduct presenting a real, immediate risk of contact (as opposed to remote threats or mere words) supports assault liability in trespass.

## Conclusion

The case stands for the rule that a plaintiff may recover for assault without showing physical contact or bodily injury when the defendant’s actions create a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful contact, as where a hatchet strike narrowly misses the plaintiff.


I. de S. & Wife v. W. de S., Y.B. Lib. Assisarum f. 99, pl. 60 (Assizes 1348)