Intentional Torts and Defenses of Leroy McPhillen and John
Victoria Downie
Kaplan University

Professor Randee Breiter
Torts and Personal Injury PA165
May 31, 2015

Intentional Torts and Defenses of Leroy McPhillen and John
Human and animal nature is defined by the subconscious behavior of the fight or flight instincts. People have the ability to view situations and determine whether they need to fight for their life or run. What sets us apart from animals is that we also have the ability to determine whether other people need us to fight for them when they cannot fight for themselves, as seen in the case of Leroy McPhillen versus John.
Leroy McPhillen was a frequent client of Bottom’s Up Pub. One Saturday night Leroy noticed an intoxicated man shouting obscenities at a woman seated at a table within close proximity to Leroy McPhillen’s table. While the woman ignored the man and continued to drink her beverage, Leroy asked the intoxicated man to join him for a beer at the bar. The man mumbled that “Leroy should mind his own business” and proceeded to grab the woman’s wrist. It was at this point that Leroy grabbed the man, later identified as John, by his other arm and neatly twisted behind his back while placing him in a neck hold. John began to protest violently. Leroy then place John in a chair and informed him not to move or he would “have to punch him”. It was at this time the woman, identified as Jane, informed Leroy that the man was in fact her husband.
The questions presented are (1) did Leroy or John commit intentional torts, and if so (2) what are their defenses? In this situation both men are guilty of committing intentional torts and both have available defenses to counteract their actions. Based on my interpretation of the facts more information would be needed to determine (1) did John intend the Assault and Battery of