In multimedia, watch the video "Woman Slaps Man, Rejects Advances." Then compose an analysis of any intentional torts present in the video. If you find that an intentional tort was committed, please indicate who committed the tort, the criteria for that tort to be successful, and how the actor's actions fit the requirements of the tort. https://youtu.be/WBflMuarvk4

According to the Legal Information Institute (LII) at Cornell, "common intentional torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Here we definitely have a battery by the man against the woman. The elements of battery are (1) harmful or offensive, (2) contact, and (3) without consent. The woman is clearly offended by the man's "familiarities" in caressing her cheek and repulses his overture forcefully. With battery, the contact need not be harmful. If someone spits on a purse being held by a woman, that could be a battery. The contact must have been intentional; if the man had had a seizure and had touched the woman involuntarily, that would not be a battery.
However, when the woman slaps the man, was that also a battery? It was intentional and harmful contact, but in being so familiar, did the man consent to the possibility that he might be rejected with a slap, or did he waive his right to complain? An argument can be made for either battery or not against the man.
We may also have an assault, but only if the man intended that the woman fear or feel threatened by his contact. According to LII, assault "is generally defined as intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact." A successful argument would show that the woman felt some fear or apprehension as the man moved forward to complete his contact. Again, there are arguments for and against.
We should also consider the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), not only by the man against the woman, but also by the woman against the man, because the woman tells the man she "once ruined a man's career," which implies she could also ruin his if she chose. According to the LII, the elements of IIED are that (1) the defendant acts, (2) does so outrageously, (3) the act is done for the purpose of causing harm so severe that it affects the plaintiff's mental health, and (4) the plaintiff's mental health is so affected by those acts. Here, the woman has indeed acted, but it is not clear that the other elements have been met. Likewise, the man appears to be aggressively flirting, but it would be hard to prove that he intended to cause mental harm to the woman.
A good law school answer to this question will go through all of the elements of battery, assault, and IIED and explain why the elements have or have not been met. But because the question asks about "intentional torts," an excellent answer would also briefly address the other intentional torts (false imprisonment, trespass to land and chattels) and why they do not apply in this case.