In which scenario would a plaintiff generally be precluded from recovery for assault?

In tort law, particularly in cases of assault, consent plays a crucial role in determining whether a plaintiff can pursue a claim for recovery. When the plaintiff consents to the anticipation of harmful or offensive contact, they cannot later seek recovery for assault. This principle is grounded in the idea that if an individual voluntarily agrees to engage in a circumstance where harmful or offensive contact may occur, they relinquish their right to claim damages arising from that contact.

For instance, in a sporting event, players consent to physical interactions that typically involve some degree of contact. If a player is injured during a normal play within the rules and expectations of the game, they cannot successfully sue for assault because they had consented to the risk associated with participating in that activity.

The other options do not present a scenario where recovery would be precluded. For instance, if the defendant uses a toy weapon, the context and the perception of threat may still allow for an assault claim. Additionally, if a plaintiff anticipates harmful contact without consent, they clearly have grounds for an assault claim. Finally, merely failing to carry out the act does not negate the assault if the apprehension of harmful contact was real and imminent. Thus, consent specifically eliminates the basis for the assault claim, making