Who is at fault if people refuse to follow social norms or show common courtesy?
<p>Some people do not move out of the way when walking even if it would be considered rude or socially unacceptable, like when the other person is much older, pregnant, or has small children. They expect others to move  for them, but they aren't breaking any laws or rules, rather not following social norms.</p>
<p>This may seem very trivial but are there are cases where something like this escalated and police were involved?</p>
<p>Who is responsible if a child, teenager or young adult does not get out of the way for an elderly person and the elderly person shoves them out of the way, knocks them on the head or commits some other act of physical aggression, which happens sometimes in such cases?</p>
<p>Where do you draw the line - if the older person only gently taps them so they move is it still their fault because any unwanted touching is assault?</p>
<p>I have also seen elderly people become physically violent towards younger people who don't give up their seat on a bus or train, although in that case the younger person is not following rules.</p>
<p>I understand the older person is committing assault but most people even in first-world countries like Canada either support the older person or don't interfere and the law would have to take into account the common public opinion.</p>

<h2>Rudeness is not a crime</h2>
<p>Thankfully, or I’d be writing this from jail.</p>
<p>The threat or actually of intentional and unwanted physical contact <em>is</em> a crime. Historically these were seperate common law crimes (and torts) of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault" rel="noreferrer">assault</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime)" rel="noreferrer">battery</a> respectively. However, in most jurisdictions these have been codified and merged and redefined so there is common assault (which merges historic assault and battery and is what you are asking about), indecent assault, sexual assault etc.</p>
<p>In general, there must be an intentionality to the contact - accidentally colliding with someone is not assault (although it can be the tort of negligence). Similarly the contact must be unwanted - participating in a game of rugby means you want to be tackled (in a legal sense, in a sports sense you don’t want to be tackled, you want to score). And finally it must intend harm - holding your hands up to prevent a collision does not intend harm even if harm may result, punching someone does.</p>
<p>In the cases you describe, the aggressor is the “elderly person” and they have committed a crime.</p>
<p>I am interested in the suggestion that public opinion in first-world countries like Canada is that being old and annoyed justifies you beating someone. That is not my understanding of public opinion in Australia- old people have to follow the rule of law here just like everybody else.</p>

<p>There are some instances where you might be allowed to do something only because it follows prevailing social norms.  In the U.S., the Supreme Court has held that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/260/127" rel="noreferrer">“A license may be implied from the habits of the country.”</a></p>
<p>For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-564" rel="noreferrer"><em>Florida v. Jardines</em></a> determined that the police (like anyone else) are allowed to walk up to someone’s door and ring the doorbell or knock on the door, even though violating commonly-understood social norms could constitute an illegal search of someone’s private property, or even trespassing.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave. Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(Yes, you guessed it: that sarcastic closing line is Antonin Scalia.)</p>

<p>Violation of social norms may often have legal effects, although not always.</p>
<h2>Possible Outcomes</h2>
<p>If a person is being rude, forcing others to get out of the way, particularly including those apparently older or more fragile, many things may happen.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>A person who perceives himself or herself to be a victim of rudeness may physically attack the rude person as described in the question. Such a person is probably guilty of assault, assault and battery, or some variant of this charge. The police may or may not arrest such an attacker, and the prosecutor may or may not file charges. A violation of social norms may incline police or prosecutor not to act. Or they may perceive that such a violation would make it hard to get a conviction. Police might also arrest the rude person on some charge, perhaps &quot;breach of the peace&quot; or &quot;disorderly conduct&quot;. Whether a conviction can be obtained on such a charge will depend on the local laws, and the exact details of the incident, but it is not impossible.</p>
</li>
<li><p>A person who perceives himself or herself to be a victim of rudeness may verbally attack or admonish the rude person. This may cause the rue person to physically attack in response. Then the rude person may attack physically, thus becoming guilty of assault or a related charge. The social disapproval of the rude person's action may cause such a charge to be dealt with more severely than would otherwise be the case.</p>
</li>
<li><p>If the rude person knocks into another, particularly a frail person, then the rude person might be charged with assault and other charges, or sued in a tort action (as described in <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/77591/17500">the answer by
ohwilleke</a> or both. Violation of social norms may disadvantage the rude person in either a criminal or a civil action.</p>
</li>
<li><p>If a police officer observes the rude person, or is summoned by someone who does, the police officer may order the rude person to stop, or may possibly arrest such a person on some available charge again perhaps &quot;breach of the peace&quot;. This might or might not lead to a (minor) criminal trial, depending on the exact events, the person's attitude and the decision of the prosecutor.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Notice that I have used &quot;may&quot; and &quot;might&quot; a good deal here. The exact outcome in any of these situations will be quite variable. It will depend on the exact situation and events, and the attitudes and decisions of the various people involved: the rude person, the victim if any, the police officer if any, and the prosecutor if it gets that far, ultimately perhaps a judge and perhaps a jury.</p>
<h2>Possible offenses involved</h2>
<p>In traditional common law <em><strong>assault</strong></em> was a <strong>threat</strong> of unwanted force or touching, that would put a reasonable person in fear of such a touching. <em><strong>Battery</strong></em> was the actual unwanted touching, often forceful or violent, but not always. Raising one's fist to someone (without justification) would be assault, punching that person would be battery. These frequently occur together, giving rise to the phrase &quot;assault and battery&quot;. A good many jurisdictions have more recently merged these, by statute or court decision, creating a single offense of &quot;assault&quot; or &quot;common assault&quot;, involving either or both of the traditional assault or battery offenses, and perhaps other related conduct. Many but not all US states have done such a merger. (Exceptions to a charge of assault or battery may involve a sports event,  proper self-defense or defense of another, use of reasonable force in arresting an offender or suspect, military action, and other situations where force or threat of force is lawful.)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/breach_of_the_peace" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Breach of the peace&quot;</a> is described by LI/Wex as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Breach of the peace is a generic phrase to describe a criminal offense that violates the public peace or order. Since numerous criminal offenses can be perceived as a violation of the public peace, this phrase is usually used to describe the offense of disorderly conduct. Due to the broad interpretation of the phrase, certain states have enacted statutes providing for a “breach of the peace” offense.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disorderly_conduct" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;disorderly conduct&quot;</a> is described by LI/Wex as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Conduct that disturbs the peace, morals, or safety of the general public or of a class of people. In other words, behavior that causes others to become annoyed, alarmed, offended, inconvenienced, physically injured, or financially harmed. Examples of such behavior include, but are not limited to: being drunk in public, loitering, fighting, making loud or disturbing noise(s), making offensive expressions or gestures, and damaging public or private property.</p>
<p>The offense is a misdemeanor in most states and usually involves some public element or impact.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This answer draws largely on US law, but should be to some extent correct in a good many non-US jurisdictions.</p>

<p>Sometimes social norms matter.</p>
<p>This comes up not primarily in the area of criminal law and intentional torts like assault and battery, but in the area of negligence.</p>
<p>Suppose somebody doesn't get out of the way of an obviously fragile person and that causes the person to fall. Is the failure to get out of the way actionable?</p>
<p>Maybe.</p>
<p>Everyone has a universal legal duty to take reasonable care to take necessary steps prevent others from suffering physical injury or property damage. What a reasonable person would do under the circumstances is determined by the trier of fact (the jury in a jury trial, or a judge, if there is a bench trial) on a case by case basis. This can be based, in part, on social norms.</p>

civil-law