Torts Deep Dive: Intentional Torts — Precision, Volition & Control
In our last Deep Dive, we unpacked Negligence — the law of carelessness. Now we turn to the other side of the coin: Intentional Torts — the law of purpose and control.
Negligence tests reasonableness. Intentional torts test decision. Every movement matters, because these torts hinge on what the actor meant to do.
What Intentional Torts Really Test
Intentional torts aren’t about mistakes — they’re about voluntary acts done with purpose or substantial certainty.
If negligence is a lapse, intentional torts are control.
Every intentional tort begins with two threshold questions:
- Was there a voluntary act?
- Did the actor intend the contact, confinement, or interference?
Once those are answered, analysis moves element by element.
The Big Seven: Core Intentional Torts
- Battery – A voluntary act causing harmful or offensive contact with another person.
- Assault – A voluntary act creating reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.
- False Imprisonment – Intentional confinement of another within fixed boundaries without lawful privilege.
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) – Extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress.
- Trespass to Land – Intentional physical entry onto the land of another without permission.
- Trespass to Chattels – Intentional interference with another’s possessory interest in personal property.
- Conversion – Intentional exercise of dominion or control over another’s chattel that seriously interferes with their right to possess it.
Voluntary Act, Intent, and Transferred Intent
Intent is the foundation of every intentional tort. It means acting with purpose to produce a result or with substantial certainty that the result will occur.
Bad motive isn’t required — only volition and knowledge of consequences.
Transferred intent bridges both persons and torts.
If D throws a rock intending to hit A but strikes B instead, intent transfers.
Likewise, intent to commit one tort (say, Assault) transfers if another (Battery or Trespass) results.
Transferred intent applies among the Big Five: Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, and Trespass to Chattels.
Exam Tip: Always check for transferred intent when someone is injured who wasn’t the original target.
The Combined Hypo
D storms into P’s home to “confront” P about a rumor. D shoves P, points a finger inches from P’s face, and yells, “You’re going to regret this.” When P tries to leave, D locks the front door and blocks the exit. Furious, D grabs P’s phone off the counter, throws it into the street, and walks out, slamming the door behind him.
In one short episode, D may have committed nearly every intentional tort — and raised multiple defenses.
Application: Intentional Torts in Motion
Battery
The shove is the classic Battery — a voluntary act resulting in harmful or offensive contact. D intentionally touched P in a way that would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
D may argue the contact was minimal, only expressive anger. But intent requires only that D intended the contact, not the harm. The shove satisfies that threshold.
Assault
When D leaned forward, gesturing and shouting “You’re going to regret this,” P reasonably feared imminent harm. That moment of reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact constitutes Assault.
D could argue his words were vague — a future threat, not an immediate one — but given proximity and aggression, apprehension was reasonable.
False Imprisonment
When D locked the door and stood blocking the exit, P was confined within fixed boundaries.
Confinement need not last long — seconds are enough if the act prevents free movement.
D might claim P could have exited another way or waited a moment, but restraint through intimidation and physical blocking meets the requirement.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct beyond all bounds of decency.
P will argue D’s invasion, aggression, and property destruction combined to create emotional trauma.
D will counter that his behavior, though angry, was impulsive, not “outrageous.”
The outcome turns on severity — if P suffered severe distress (medical or psychological evidence), IIED may succeed; otherwise, it’s marginal.
Trespass to Land
Entry alone satisfies Trespass to Land. D intentionally entered P’s home without consent.
Mistake isn’t a defense — it’s enough that D meant to walk onto the property.
Trespass to Chattels
D interfered with P’s personal property — the phone — by taking and throwing it.
If the phone was recoverable and only temporarily displaced, that’s Trespass to Chattels — minor interference with possession.
Conversion
But if the phone was destroyed or permanently lost, the interference is substantial enough to constitute Conversion.
Conversion is effectively a “forced sale” — D owes P the full value of the item.
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Even when all elements are met, D may raise affirmative defenses to limit or excuse liability.
Consent
If P consented — expressly or impliedly — to the contact or conduct, no tort occurs.
For instance, contact during a football game or mutual confrontation can imply consent.
But consent obtained by fraud, coercion, or exceeding its scope is invalid.
Self-Defense
A person may use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm.
D could argue that P advanced aggressively or provoked him, prompting a defensive reaction.
Force must match the threat — deadly force only for deadly threats.
Defense of Others
Similar to self-defense, D may act to protect a third party, using the same standard of reasonable force under the circumstances.
Defense of Property
D may use reasonable, non-deadly force to prevent trespass or recover property.
Once P was inside D’s home, however, this defense reverses — P, the homeowner, could use it against D.
Necessity
Necessity applies when a defendant interferes with another’s property to prevent greater harm.
There’s no necessity here, but always check — it’s a frequent bar twist in property torts.
Conclusion
Intentional torts reward precision.
Each element is distinct, but the facts often overlap — one act spawning multiple claims.
Strong analysis means identifying every tort, connecting it to intent, and recognizing available defenses.
On the bar or in class, intentional torts aren’t about emotion — they’re about structure.
Who did what, why they did it, and how the law classifies that intent.
Pro Tips
- Intent = purpose or substantial certainty. Never confuse it with motive.
- Transferred intent can connect multiple victims or torts.
- Battery and Assault often travel together — prove both.
- Mistake is not a defense in intentional torts.
- Always discuss defenses. Self-defense, consent, and necessity can change the result.
FAQ
1. What’s the biggest difference between Negligence and Intentional Torts?
Negligence is carelessness; intentional torts require purpose or certainty.
2. Does D need to intend the injury?
No — only the contact or act itself. Harmful results aren’t required for intent.
3. What is transferred intent?
Intent aimed at one person or tort can transfer to another person or tort within the Big Five intentional torts.
4. Can an accident ever be an intentional tort?
No. If the act wasn’t voluntary, it’s not intentional. It may be negligence instead.
5. Are punitive damages available?
Yes — intentional torts allow for punitive damages where conduct is malicious or outrageous.
