What tort does it constitute if an AP threatens a client with restraints to compel eating?

When an assisted person threatens a client with restraints to compel eating, this constitutes assault because assault involves the intentional act of causing another person to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact. In this scenario, the threat of using restraints signifies a potential for physical harm and creates a fear in the client, even if the restraints are never physically applied. The client experiences a reasonable apprehension of being restrained against their will, which fulfills the criteria for assault.

Negligence pertains to a failure to exercise reasonable care that results in harm, while breach of duty relates to failing to meet one's obligations, both of which do not apply in this situation. Informed consent violation involves not obtaining permission for procedures or treatments but is not relevant here since the focus is on the threatening behavior rather than consent for specific medical interventions.