How does the minority rule differ in assessing anticipation in assault cases?

In the context of assault cases, the minority rule allows for subjective anticipation based on the plaintiff’s perspective. This means that the focus is on how the plaintiff perceives the threat of harm. For a claim of assault to be valid under this rule, the plaintiff's reasonable apprehension of imminent harm is critical, even if the defendant did not intend for the plaintiff to feel threatened.

This subjective standard contrasts with the majority rule, which typically employs an objective standard. The majority views the situation through the lens of a reasonable person, assessing whether a typical person would feel apprehensive in the plaintiff's position. By focusing on the individual's unique perspective and experience, the minority rule acknowledges the personal and emotional context of the plaintiff's reaction to the defendant's actions.

This approach aligns well with the principles of tort law, which emphasize the experiences and feelings of individuals. It recognizes that each person’s perception of threat is valid and should be considered in determining whether an assault occurred.