Hilgefort vs Stewart is a case of intentional tort. Not only one tort but two. The torts being battery and assault. I believe in this case both torts are proven to be justified. The tort of Assault is defined as a purposeful act that causes an apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact. To be a tort of assault there has to be proven threats. From what the case stated Mr. Stewart had threatened and even stated to Mr. Hilgefort that if he wanted the hat straight “ he should turn it around for him”. The tort of battery is obviously justified because Mr.Hilgefort was thrown to the ground. Mr. Hilgefort was just trying to do his job, when Mr.Stewart took excessive action against him. If Mr. Stewart did not violate their rule to start with,
