If A telephones B threatening to shoot him and later encounters B, is this considered an assault?

In tort law, assault is defined as an intentional act that causes another person to reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. The key element here is the immediacy of the threat and the reasonable perception of that threat by the victim.

When A telephones B and threatens to shoot him, A's words can create a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm in B's mind. Even though the threat was made over the phone, it can still convey a serious intent to cause harm, especially given the explicit mention of a weapon. The mere act of threatening someone with harm can fulfill the criteria for assault, provided that the recipient of the threat perceives it as an immediate and credible threat.

In this scenario, since B receives a direct threat of being shot, it can be concluded that B experiences a reasonable apprehension of imminent danger, which satisfies the requirements for an assault. Thus, regardless of whether A physically encountered B thereafter or whether any physical harm was inflicted, the threat alone is sufficient to classify the act as assault.