Brower v Ackerley
Citation: Brower v Ackerly, 943 P.2d 1141 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)
Parties:
- Jordan Brower (plaintiff)
- Chris & Theodore Ackerley (defendant)
Facts:
- Brower hated billboards and found out the Ackerlys had some illegally placed billboards in the city. He called the city to have them do something about it and then sued them until they finally did. Afterwards, the city passed first a moratorium, and then an ordinance about billboard activity that the Ackerly’s didn’t like. One of the sons of the founder of Ackerly Communications made a lot of threatening phone calls to Brower, telling him they were going to cut him in his sleep and find out where he lives and kick his ass.
Procedural History:
- Trial court granted summary judgement to defendant, Brower appealed
Issue:
- If you threaten someone over the phone, does that create a threat of imminent physical harm?
Rule:
- For the elements of assault to be met, the apprehension created must be one of imminent contact, not of one in the future.
Holding:
- No, threatening someone over the phone does not create the apprehension of imminent harm
Reasoning:
- If someone is calling you on the phone that means they aren’t right in front you to harm you immediately. Even if someone said they were going to shoot you and walked to the other room to grab a gun, there was no risk of an imminent harm. Maybe there was risk of harm in the near future, but that isn’t what the definition of assault requires.
Decision:
- Trial court’s decision was affirmed
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. This case brief and the others on this website are based solely on my personal understanding of the underlying case. They emphasize the points that my law professors emphasized. You should use them merely as a supplement to your own studies.