In WA state. Wilma and Fred do not know eachother. He kisses her on the lips, she is shocke and surprised.
Anyone can sue anyone. Whether the suit has merit is an entirely different question. Whether they can be successful is yet a different question.
J Charles Ferrari Eng & Nishimura 213.622.2255 The statement above is general in nature and does not constitute legal advice, as not all the facts are known. You should retain an attorney to review all the facts specific to your case in order to receive advise specific to your case. The statement above does not create an attorney/client relationship. Answers on Avvo can only be general ones, as specific answers would require knowledge of all the facts. As such, they may or may not apply to the question.
Sounds like somebody is looking for an answer to a hypothetical question in class. That said, there are two possible "torts" here: assault (apprehension of harmful or offensive touching) and battery (the actual harmful or offensive touching). If Wilma did not see the kiss coming or otherwise anticipate the "kiss", there would likely not be an "assault", but if Fred's lips actually touched Wilma, there is likely a battery. Similarly, if Wilma slaps Fred, there is a potential "battery" and if Fred saw it coming, that would be an assault. The next question is whether the slap may be excused (or otherwise be a complete defense) in response to the offensive kiss. Chances are, a jury would find Wilma justified in her reaction. Is there anything "actionable" in either case? Well, for any assault or battery to be actionable in terms of a recovery, there must be damages. It's hard to see any significant damages in either case.
If this is a test question, good luck on the test.
Disclaimer- The information you obtain at our web-site or through postings on such sites as this is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for specific advice regarding your individual situation. Any response given here is not intended to create, nor does it create an ongoing duty to respond to questions. The response does not form an attorney-client relationship, nor is it intended to be relied upon as legal advice. The response given is based upon the limited facts provided by the person asking the question. To the extent additional or different facts exist, the response might possibly change.
Personal Injury Lawyer
This sounds like you are taking a law class in high school. You can sue a ham sandwich, but will you win is the question.
Licensed in PA & NJ. 29% Contingency Fee. Phone: 215-510-6755 www.InjuryLawyerPhiladelphia.com