Let’s analyze the facts:

– The boy’s arrow physically missed the hiker, so there was no harmful or offensive contact (no battery).
– The hiker did not apprehend imminent harmful contact because he saw the arrow only out of the corner of his eye and reacted reflexively—he was not placed in fear of immediate contact before it happened. Thus, no assault.
– Negligence requires a duty of care, breach, causation, and damages. The boy did breach a duty by shooting an arrow that could enter woods where others might be, and the hiker’s injury (eye) was a foreseeable result of the boy’s negligent act.

Therefore, the only successful claim is negligence.

\boxed{F}