Intentional Torts
Intentional torts — including battery, assault, false imprisonment, and IIED — require a volitional act with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact or apprehension.
Overview
Intentional torts are civil wrongs committed when the defendant acts with the purpose of causing a particular result or with substantial certainty that the result will occur. The major intentional torts against persons include battery, assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Battery requires an intentional, harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person. The intent element is satisfied if the defendant acted with the purpose of causing contact or knew with substantial certainty that contact would result. The contact need not be directly with the plaintiff's body — extending to anything closely connected (clothing, objects held). Garratt v. Dailey established that even a child can commit battery if they act with substantial certainty that harmful contact will result.
Assault requires an intentional act that causes the plaintiff to experience a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Actual contact is not required — the tort protects against the fear of contact. Words alone are generally insufficient without an accompanying act.
False imprisonment requires the intentional confinement of the plaintiff within fixed boundaries, through physical force, threats, or assertion of legal authority. The plaintiff must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it.
IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. The conduct must go beyond all bounds of decency tolerated by civilized society.
Key defenses include consent, self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and necessity. The transferred intent doctrine applies across the original five torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels).
Key Takeaway
Intent for intentional torts means purpose or substantial certainty — not mere recklessness or negligence. The transferred intent doctrine can shift intent between persons and between torts.
Exam Tip
Always check for transferred intent when the defendant intends to commit one tort but accomplishes another, or intends to harm one person but injures a different person. Also, analyze defenses — consent and self-defense are frequently tested.
Landmark Cases (14)
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the intent requirement for intentional torts?
Intent requires either: (1) the defendant acted with the purpose of causing the harmful result, or (2) the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the result would occur. Mere negligence or recklessness is insufficient.
What is the transferred intent doctrine?
Transferred intent applies when a defendant intends to commit one of five torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels) against one person but either commits a different tort or harms a different person. The original intent transfers to the actual result.
What is the difference between battery and assault?
Battery requires actual harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires only the reasonable apprehension of imminent contact — no touching is necessary. A person can commit assault without battery (pointing an unloaded gun) or battery without assault (striking someone from behind).
When is consent a defense to intentional torts?
Consent is a complete defense when it is informed, voluntary, and covers the scope of the defendant's conduct. Consent obtained by fraud, duress, or mistake may be invalid. Consent to medical treatment, for example, must be informed to be effective.
Master Intentional Torts with Briefly
AI-powered tools built for law students. Generate case briefs, practice cold calls, and ace your torts exam.