Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Intentional tort

An intentional tort is a category of civil wrongdoing in which the intentionally engages in an act that invades a legally protected interest of the , such as , property rights, or liberty, requiring proof of rather than mere carelessness or accident. Unlike negligent torts, which stem from a failure to exercise reasonable care and result in unintended harm, intentional torts demand that the defendant either specifically intends the harmful consequences or acts with substantial certainty that harm will occur. This intent distinguishes intentional torts from other forms of liability, emphasizing willful misconduct over inadvertence. Common examples of intentional torts include , which involves an intentional harmful or offensive physical contact; , the intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; , the intentional confinement of another without lawful justification; , the intentional interference with another's ; , the intentional interference with ; and , involving extreme and outrageous conduct intended to cause severe emotional harm. Other notable instances encompass , where false statements intentionally harm another's reputation, and , the wrongful initiation of legal proceedings with intent to harass. These torts protect fundamental interests in personal security, property rights, and emotional well-being, serving as a legal mechanism to deter deliberate invasions of those rights. Victims of intentional torts may seek compensatory damages to cover actual losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, or , aiming to restore the to their pre-injury position. Additionally, courts may award punitive damages in cases of particularly egregious conduct, such as where the defendant's actions demonstrate malice, recklessness, or willful disregard for the 's rights, to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar behavior. For instance, under statutes like California's Section 3294, are explicitly available for certain intentional torts to address the heightened culpability involved. Defenses to intentional torts, including consent or , must be affirmatively proven by the , underscoring the policy of holding intentional actors to a strict standard of .

Overview

Definition

An intentional tort is a that arises from an intentional act by the , which causes or with the 's , and requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted with purpose or with substantial certainty that the harmful result would occur. Unlike unintentional torts such as , which are based on an standard of failing to exercise reasonable care, or , which imposes responsibility without regard to fault for inherently dangerous activities, intentional torts emphasize the defendant's subjective intent to engage in the conduct or to produce the consequences. Intentional torts form one of the three primary categories of law, alongside and . A key concept in intentional torts is the doctrine of transferred intent, under which the defendant's intent to commit a tort against one can transfer to an unintended victim if harm results, ensuring for the deliberate wrongdoing even when the target is not as planned—for example, if a defendant intends to strike A but instead strikes B. Battery serves as a classic example of an intentional tort, defined as the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another , where the contact need not cause injury but must be unpermitted and capable of offending a reasonable 's sense of dignity. The case of Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891), illustrates the application of in intentional torts, where a minor kick by the to the plaintiff's leg during —deemed unlawful due to violation of rules—resulted in severe, unforeseen from a pre-existing condition, holding the liable because the to make the was sufficient, regardless of the lack of intent to cause serious harm.

Public Policy Rationale

The public policy rationale for intentional tort law centers on deterring willful misconduct by imposing civil that holds individuals accountable for deliberate harms, thereby protecting to personal autonomy and . Unlike negligence-based torts, which focus on accidental harms, intentional torts emphasize the moral culpability of purposeful actions, justifying stricter standards and remedies such as to punish egregious behavior and discourage similar conduct in . This deterrence function is rooted in economic analyses of tort , where the threat of financial consequences discourages investments in harmful , promoting by reducing the incidence of deliberate wrongs. Intentional tort law complements criminal sanctions by enabling victims to seek direct restitution through private civil actions, bypassing the need for state-initiated prosecution and addressing gaps in criminal enforcement where public resources may limit redress. In systems, this civil framework evolved from early writs of in the medieval period, which provided remedies for forcible wrongs when criminal processes, such as indictments or appeals of , proved insufficient for individual compensation, thus filling a critical void in private . This dual-track approach ensures that victims of intentional harms receive tailored compensation for losses, including non-economic injuries, without relying solely on the punitive aims of . In modern , the rationale has shifted toward victim-centered , increasingly recognizing emotional and dignitary harms as compensable to affirm personal and prevent societal tolerance of intentional wrongdoing. This evolution reflects broader public policy concerns, such as prohibiting insurance coverage for intentional torts to avoid , where indemnification might encourage reckless or malicious acts by shifting costs away from the wrongdoer. By prioritizing restitution for psychological injuries alongside physical ones, intentional tort law adapts to contemporary understandings of harm, reinforcing social norms against deliberate violations without overlapping excessively with criminal deterrence.

Elements of Proof

Intent

In intentional torts, refers to the actor's regarding the consequences of their voluntary act, specifically the purpose to cause a particular result or the knowledge that such a result is substantially certain to follow. This standard, as articulated in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 1, distinguishes intentional torts from by requiring more than mere carelessness or risk-taking. For instance, purposeful intent exists when the actor desires to bring about the harmful or offensive contact, such as deliberately punching someone, while substantial certainty applies when the actor knows with practical assurance that the result will occur, like firing a into a crowded room where harm to bystanders is inevitable. Proof of intent is subjective, focusing on what the actually knew or desired rather than what a would have known, and it is typically inferred from the circumstances surrounding the act rather than of the defendant's thoughts. No requirement exists for ill will, malice, or any specific motive; it suffices that the actor volitionally aimed at the proscribed result through their conduct. Recklessness, which involves a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable without the actor's in substantial of , generally does not satisfy the intent element and is instead aligned with liability. However, some intentional torts impose a requirement, mandating both the intent to perform the act and the intent that the invasion occur, as seen in where certain jurisdictions require intent not only for the contact but also that it be harmful or offensive. In , intent centers on the 's or substantial to cause the to apprehend imminent harmful or offensive , assessed through the defendant's of how their actions—such as raising a or pointing an unloaded —would reasonably be perceived by the under the circumstances. , by contrast, requires to cause the actual harmful or offensive itself, without needing to injure, as illustrated in cases where a defendant throws an object knowing contact is substantially certain, even if the primary is someone else. Courts evaluate this objectively from external facts, such as the defendant's prior statements or the predictability of the outcome, ensuring liability attaches only to deliberate invasions rather than accidental or inadvertent ones.

Volitional Act and Harm

In intentional torts, the volitional act element requires a deliberate and voluntary bodily movement by the defendant, or in certain cases, an omission where a legal duty to act exists. This act must be under the defendant's control, distinguishing intentional liability from involuntary reflexes or unconscious conduct, as illustrated in the seminal case of Garratt v. Dailey, where a child's deliberate pulling of a chair constituted the requisite volitional movement. Combined with the intent requirement, such an act forms the actus reus foundation for claims like battery or false imprisonment. Causation in intentional torts demands a direct factual and proximate link between the volitional and the resulting or of , ensuring the defendant's conduct is the substantial factor producing the injury. This linkage is typically straightforward due to the deliberate nature of the , but it must demonstrate that the would not have occurred but for the defendant's intervention. Nominal damages may be awarded for technical violations of protected s even absent actual injury, vindicating the plaintiff's rights in cases of mere unauthorized contact or entry. Not all intentional torts necessitate physical injury; for instance, requires only severe emotional harm stemming from extreme and outrageous conduct, without bodily contact. The rule extends to these claims, holding the defendant liable for the full extent of harm to a particularly vulnerable , as the tortfeasor "takes the as found." In property torts, harm encompasses any intentional interference with the 's possession or use, irrespective of physical damage, such as unauthorized entry onto . Omissions qualify as volitional acts when a imposes an affirmative obligation, as in where a fails to release a confined after a expires, thereby continuing the restraint. This duty-based omission sustains liability only if the initial confinement was intentional and the failure to act prolongs the harm.

Categories

Torts Against the Person

Torts against the person encompass intentional wrongs that directly infringe upon an individual's , , and emotional security, distinguishing them from harms to or economic interests. These torts typically require proof of to engage in the proscribed conduct, often coupled with causation of the specified harm, as outlined in the general elements of intentional torts. Common examples include , , , and , each addressing distinct facets of personal violation. Assault involves an intentional act by the that creates in the a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact with their person. No actual contact is required; the focuses on the psychological impact of the , provided the apprehension is one that a would experience under the circumstances. For instance, pointing a at someone or making a credible verbal of immediate violence can constitute if it induces fear of . This protects against the fear of physical violation, emphasizing the defendant's purposeful creation of alarm. Battery occurs when the intentionally causes harmful or offensive physical with the or other legal justification. The must be direct or indirect but volitional, and "offensive" is judged by what a would find violative of bodily autonomy, such as unpermitted touching or . Unlike , battery requires actual , though the harm need not be severe—mere skin-to-skin suffices if unconsented. Applying the general intent requirement, the must have acted with purpose or substantial certainty that would result. False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or restraint of the within fixed boundaries without lawful or the 's , where the is aware of the confinement or harmed by it. Confinement can be achieved through physical barriers, physical force, or even threats of harm that induce submission, as long as the restraint is total and not merely a delay in movement. For example, locking someone in a room or using duress to prevent exit qualifies, but the plaintiff must believe they cannot safely leave. This tort safeguards , recognizing indirect means like asserted legal as sufficient if baseless. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) arises from extreme and outrageous conduct by the that intentionally or recklessly causes the severe emotional harm. The conduct must exceed all bounds of decency tolerated by society, such as calculated or , and the distress must be so severe that no reasonable person could endure it, often evidenced by or significant disruption to daily life. Some jurisdictions require recklessness in lieu of specific intent, broadening liability to acts where the disregards a high probability of harm. An early recognition of this came in the English case (1897), where a involving a false report of the 's husband's caused her severe and , holding the liable for willful acts calculated to produce harm to personal safety. In modern contexts, IIED has been applied to , where persistent online harassment, such as repeated threats or doxxing, intentionally inflicts profound , as seen in civil claims under this for non-physical but invasive pursuits. In some jurisdictions, invasion of privacy has emerged as an intentional tort protecting personal integrity, particularly through branches like intentional intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of private facts . This involves deliberate acts that unreasonably intrude into private affairs or reveal intimate details, causing emotional harm akin to other personal torts.

Torts Against Property

Torts against property encompass intentional interferences with another individual's rights in (chattels) or (), distinct from harms to personal integrity. These torts protect possessory and interests by imposing for deliberate invasions that cause harm, deprivation of use, or wrongful dominion, even absent knowledge of the true owner's identity. The requisite intent focuses on the voluntary act of interference or entry, not malice or specific harm. Trespass to land occurs when a intentionally enters or causes an object to enter upon the real property of another without permission, constituting an unlawful physical invasion. The elements include a voluntary act resulting in entry onto the land and the absence of legal justification, such as or . is satisfied by the purpose to enter the land or substantial certainty that entry will result, regardless of mistaken belief in or right to enter; no intent to commit the trespass itself is required. For instance, a person who deliberately crosses a boundary fence, even under the erroneous assumption it is , commits the tort. Nominal are available even without actual harm, though recovery may include the property's diminished value or lost use if occurs. Trespass to chattels involves the intentional with another's lawful possession of , resulting in such as damage, impairment of condition, or temporary deprivation of use. Key elements are the 's voluntary act that directly affects the —through dispossession, use, or intermeddling—and actual to the plaintiff's possessory interest. Intent requires only the purpose to interfere or knowledge that interference is substantially certain, even if the believes the belongs to them. Unlike more severe interferences, this tort addresses minor disruptions; for example, intentionally borrowing and slightly damaging a neighbor's without permission qualifies, allowing for repair costs or lost utility. are measured by the extent of , including economic loss from deprivation of possession. Conversion represents a more egregious form of interference with chattels, where the defendant intentionally exercises dominion or control over the personal property in a manner inconsistent with the owner's rights, effectively treating it as their own. The elements consist of the plaintiff's right to immediate possession, the defendant's serious and wrongful interference (such as theft, destruction, or substantial alteration), and intent to assert control over the chattel. This intent can be inferred from actions like selling or refusing to return the property, and liability attaches even if the defendant acts under a good-faith mistake regarding ownership. Classic examples include stealing goods for personal use or destroying them outright, warranting damages equivalent to the chattel's full market value at the time of conversion, plus any consequential losses from deprivation of use. A seminal distinction between and arises in Fouldes v. Willoughby (1841) 8 M&W 540, where a operator, refusing to the plaintiff's horses, led them off the vessel and onto land; the court held this constituted due to the unauthorized movement and temporary dispossession but not , as the lacked to exercise over the animals, such as selling or keeping them. In modern contexts, extends to digital property; for instance, the intentional deletion of files from another's computer deprives the owner of and use, supporting a claim where the interference is substantial, as affirmed in Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2007), where courts recognized for the wrongful taking and retention of electronic records. Pure duplication without deletion may not qualify, but acts causing permanent , like erasure, do.

Defenses

Consent

Consent serves as a complete defense to intentional torts, negating when the plaintiff has agreed to the defendant's otherwise tortious conduct. This defense applies primarily to torts against the person, such as , where the absence of is a key element. may be express, manifested through words or writing, or implied, inferred from the plaintiff's actions, silence, or the surrounding circumstances as a would interpret them. However, the scope of is strictly limited to the risks that were anticipated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of agreement, preventing defendants from exceeding the bounds of what was permitted. In practice, consent bars recovery in scenarios like medical procedures and participation in contact sports, provided the conduct remains within the consented parameters. For instance, a who expressly consents to a specific cannot later claim for that procedure, but unauthorized additional interventions would exceed the scope. Similarly, athletes imply to the ordinary physical contacts inherent in their sport, such as tackles in or checks in , defending against claims for such actions. This arises from the voluntary participation in activities where physical contact is expected, but it does not extend to intentional or reckless acts that violate the rules or pose excessive danger. Consent is invalid and thus ineffective as a defense if obtained through , duress, or when the plaintiff lacks capacity, such as minors or individuals with mental incapacities. vitiates when the defendant misrepresents material facts, leading the to agree under , while duress involves threats or that undermine . Additionally, prohibits enforcing to conduct that constitutes serious criminal acts or grave harms, ensuring that individuals cannot waive protection against egregious violations. A related doctrine, —Latin for "to a willing person, injury is not done"—reinforces by barring recovery when the knowingly and voluntarily assumes a specific risk. This principle underpins the voluntary in tort law, as illustrated in the landmark medical case of Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914), where the court held that every competent adult has the right to determine what shall be done with their body, and performing an operation without the patient's constitutes a , absent emergencies.

Self-Defense and Necessity

Self-defense serves as a privilege-based defense to intentional torts such as and , allowing a to use reasonable force to repel an imminent unlawful force threatening themselves or others. This defense requires that the reasonably believe the force is necessary to prevent harm, and the response must be proportional to the threat posed. For instance, non-deadly force is generally permissible in defense of one's person or a , but is limited to situations where the faces imminent or serious bodily injury. Despite satisfying the intent element of an intentional tort, negates liability if these conditions are met. The privilege extends to the defense of property, permitting reasonable non-deadly force to prevent or terminate a against real or , such as ejecting a . However, is not justified solely for property protection unless it escalates to a , emphasizing the prioritization of over material interests. A key principle is : the force used must not exceed what is reasonably necessary, and excessive force renders the privilege incomplete, potentially leading to for the excess. In some jurisdictions, there is no before employing force, particularly , allowing the defendant to "stand their ground" if they reasonably perceive an imminent . A classic illustration of excessive force in property defense is Bird v. Holbrook (1828), where the defendant installed a on his land that wounded a young trespasser searching for a lost bird; the court held the defendant liable for , ruling that such disproportionate and hidden mechanisms violate the limits of reasonable . Necessity provides another justification for intentional interferences, distinguishing between private and forms. Private necessity excuses a defendant's invasion of the plaintiff's or interests to protect a greater personal interest, such as entering another's land to escape an immediate peril like a storm or fire. Unlike , private necessity offers only a limited : while it shields against nominal , the defendant remains liable for actual harm caused to the plaintiff's . necessity, which involves actions to avert harm to the community at large, is rarer in intentional tort contexts and typically provides a complete defense when the clearly outweighs the individual harm. In modern applications, exemplifies a limited necessity privilege, allowing a individual to detain another for a or if there is reasonable cause, but only with proportional force and without exceeding statutory bounds, or else facing liability for .

Remedies

Compensatory Damages

Compensatory in intentional cases aim to restore the to the position they would have occupied had the not occurred, covering actual losses suffered as a direct result of the defendant's intentional conduct. These are distinct from punitive awards and focus solely on making the whole for harms including physical , emotional distress, and . Courts calculate them based on the plaintiff's provable losses, often including prejudgment interest to account for the . Compensatory damages are categorized into economic, non-economic, and nominal types. Economic damages, also known as special damages, compensate for quantifiable financial losses such as medical expenses, lost wages, and future earning capacity reductions, which must be specifically pleaded and proven with evidence. Non-economic damages, or general damages, address intangible harms like , emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, which arise directly from the and are assessed by the factfinder without precise calculation. Nominal damages, typically a small symbolic amount such as one dollar, are awarded when a legal right has been violated—such as in cases of or —but no actual loss or injury is demonstrated, affirming the infringement on the plaintiff's rights. In intentional torts, compensatory damages often extend to dignitary harms, allowing recovery for intangible injuries like humiliation or invasion of privacy that may not require proof of physical impact, as seen in where emotional suffering from confinement is compensable. The rule further ensures full compensation, holding the defendant liable for the entire extent of the plaintiff's injuries, even if unforeseeable due to pre-existing vulnerabilities, applying equally to intentional torts like . For torts against property, such as , damages are measured by the lesser of the property's diminution in market value or the reasonable costs of repair or restoration, with U.S. jurisdictions permitting recovery for future losses upon sufficient evidentiary support.

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, serve to punish s for egregious intentional conduct and to deter similar future misconduct by the defendant and others. These awards are distinct from compensatory damages, as they go beyond restoring the and instead address , , or willful and wanton disregard for others' rights. In many jurisdictions, to justify in intentional tort cases, s must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions were reprehensible beyond mere . In the United States, constitutional due process limits on punitive damages were established by the Supreme Court in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996), which outlined three guideposts to assess excessiveness: the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct, the ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, and the difference between the punitive award and comparable civil or criminal penalties. Subsequent rulings, such as State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell (2003), reinforced that punitive-to-compensatory ratios exceeding single digits are suspect, with a 4:1 ratio often viewed as approaching the constitutional limit for most cases. These standards ensure that awards provide fair notice and proportionality, particularly in intentional torts involving high culpability. Punitive damages are commonly awarded in intentional torts against the person, such as intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) or battery accompanied by aggravating factors like humiliation or prolonged suffering. For instance, in battery cases involving malice, courts frequently impose punitive awards to condemn the willful harm. In contrast, punitive damages are unavailable or rare in torts against property, such as trespass or conversion, unless the conduct demonstrates extreme malice that shocks the conscience. Public policy generally bars insurance coverage for punitive damages arising from intentional torts, as allowing insurability would undermine their deterrent purpose by shifting the punitive burden to insurers. The Supreme Court in J. C. Penney Casualty Insurance Co. v. M. K. (1991) held that punitive damages for willful misconduct are uninsurable under Insurance Code section 533, which excludes coverage for intentional acts. Exceptions may apply for punitive awards stemming from pre-intentional acts, such as negligence covered by the policy, but not for the intentional component itself.

Comparisons and Variations

With Negligence and Strict Liability

Intentional torts differ fundamentally from in the mental state required for liability. In intentional torts, the defendant must act with purpose to cause the harmful or offensive result or with substantial certainty that it will occur, as defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A. By contrast, imposes liability for breaching a of reasonable , without any requirement of ; the focus is on whether the defendant's conduct created a foreseeable risk of harm to the . This distinction affects proof: plaintiffs in intentional tort cases bear the burden of establishing subjective , often through , whereas claims center on objective standards of and foreseeability. Additionally, successful intentional tort claims more readily support to deter deliberate wrongdoing, unlike , where such awards are rarer and typically require egregious recklessness. Compared to strict liability, intentional torts emphasize deliberate misconduct as the basis for accountability. holds defendants responsible for harm arising from abnormally dangerous activities—such as blasting operations or keeping wild animals—without proving intent, , or any fault beyond the occurrence of the harm itself, per the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 519–520. In these cases, the policy rationale prioritizes compensating victims of inherently risky enterprises over assessing the defendant's culpability. Intentional torts, however, require affirmative proof of the defendant's purposeful or knowing conduct, highlighting moral blameworthiness rather than mere risk allocation. Key distinctions between intentional torts and these unintentional theories include the evidentiary threshold and remedial scope. The higher burden in intentional torts—proving subjective intent—contrasts with negligence's objective breach analysis and strict liability's fault-free imposition, yet it unlocks broader remedies, such as nominal damages for dignitary harms without physical injury and the doctrine of transferred intent, which uniquely allows liability when the defendant's purpose shifts to an unintended victim (e.g., intending to strike one person but hitting another in battery). Overlaps occur in hybrid scenarios, where conduct like reckless driving might qualify as negligence due to careless risk-taking, but escalates to an intentional tort like battery if motivated by deliberate road rage aimed at causing harm.

Jurisdictional Differences

Intentional tort law traces its origins to English common law in the 19th century, where cases like Wilkinson v. Downton 2 Q.B. 57 established liability for willful acts calculated to cause physical harm or nervous shock, even without direct physical contact, as a prank led to the plaintiff's severe illness and vomiting. This ruling created the foundational "Rule in Wilkinson v. Downton" for recognizing indirect intentional harm through words or conduct, adapting common law to psychological injuries in an era of evolving medical understanding of nervous disorders. The United States adopted and expanded these English principles post-independence, incorporating intentional torts into state common law systems while introducing reforms such as punitive damages caps to limit excessive awards, beginning in the 1980s with about 20 states enacting limits initially for medical malpractice and later for punitive damages in intentional cases, often tying them to compensatory amounts or single-digit multipliers. By the 1990s, a majority of U.S. states had implemented such caps amid tort reform efforts, contrasting with the uncapped English tradition that influenced early American law. In the United States, the of (IIED) is broader than in other jurisdictions, allowing liability for extreme and outrageous conduct committed with intent to cause severe emotional distress or with recklessness as to its probability, as codified in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 since 1948. For instance, U.S. courts have upheld IIED claims in cases of intentional , emphasizing the interest in freedom from severe emotional distress as sufficiently important to warrant protection. In contrast, the adheres to a stricter standard derived from , limiting recovery to intentional infliction of "" resulting in recognized physical or psychiatric injury, without extending to recklessness or broader emotional harm. follows a similar narrow approach to the UK, recognizing IIED primarily for intentional acts causing but with limited scope compared to the U.S., often requiring foreseeability of harm akin to principles rather than pure recklessness. Emerging cyber torts highlight these divergences; in the U.S., states like provide civil remedies for nonconsensual intimate imagery as intentional invasions of , while and criminalize with intent to harass, enabling tort claims for emotional distress. Civil law jurisdictions offer limited direct analogs to intentional torts, instead addressing harms through general frameworks emphasizing fault. In , the distinguishes delicts under Article 1382 for intentional wrongs from quasi-delicts for negligent fault, though recent drafts like the 2011 Terré proposal abandon this binary in favor of a unified civil focused on proving fault or risk, with a victim-centric approach prioritizing compensation over specific intent categories. ’s § 823 imposes liability for intentional or negligent damage to protected rights, treating intent as one form of fault within a broader unlawful act requirement, without the discrete intentional tort categories like found in . efforts toward harmonization, such as the Rome II Regulation () No 864/2007, standardize choice-of-law rules for torts and delicts by applying the law of the place where damage occurs (lex loci delicti commissi), with exceptions for closer connections, facilitating cross-border claims including intentional harms without favoring one national system's specifics. As of November 2025, intentional law has adapted to digital contexts across jurisdictions, incorporating claims for harms like manipulations. In the U.S., the DEFIANCE Act of 2025, which was reintroduced in May 2025 and passed the unanimously, would establish a private right of action for victims of non-consensual AI-generated deepfakes depicting intimate content, potentially analogizing to or IIED by addressing unauthorized digital intrusions on bodily . The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into on May 19, 2025, requires online platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including deepfakes, and provides civil options that can support claims for emotional distress from online . Globally, insurability of intentional torts remains inconsistent; while U.S. jurisdictions vary—most allowing coverage for certain intentional acts like discrimination under employment policies but prohibiting it for in states like — debates highlight gaps, as some systems insure to compensate victims despite deterrence concerns, leading to uneven protection in cross-border digital claims.

References

  1. [1]
    intentional tort | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    An intentional tort is a type of tort that can only result from an intentional act of the defendant. Depending on the exact tort alleged, either general or ...
  2. [2]
    tort | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability.Intentional torts · Tort damages · Mass tort litigation · Negligence
  3. [3]
    Fundamentals of Tort Law - National Paralegal College
    Intentional torts are based on willful misconduct or intentional wrongs. It is important to remember, however, that the intent is not necessarily a hostile ...
  4. [4]
    Introduction to Tort Law | Congress.gov
    May 26, 2023 · Another intentional tort is defamation—making a false spoken or written statement that harms another person's reputation. Tort Remedies. A ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  5. [5]
    Intentional Torts - The Climate Change and Public Health Law Site
    The most common intentional tort is battery. The legal standard for a battery is “an intentional, unconsented harmful or offensive touching.” (Batteries such ...
  6. [6]
    punitive damages | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Punitive damages are considered punishment and are typically awarded at the court's discretion when the defendant's behavior is found to be especially harmful.
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Intentional Torts - NYU Law
    Vicarious Liability. A. Basic Doctrine: when one person or entity is held responsible for the tortious acts of another acting on its behalf. B. Respondeat ...
  8. [8]
    transferred intent | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Transferred intent is used when a defendant intends to harm one victim, but then unintentionally harms a second victim instead.
  9. [9]
    battery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent. It is both an intentional tort and a crime.
  10. [10]
    Vosburg v. Putney
    The defendant reached across the aisle with his foot, and hit with his toe the shin of the right leg of the plaintiff. The touch was slight. The plaintiff did ...Missing: text | Show results with:text
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Deterrence and liability for intentional torts - Penn Carey Law
    Jul 4, 2020 · Law and economics suggests that liability for intentional torts is motivated by deterrence. The tortfeasor's investments in undertaking the ...
  12. [12]
    Punitive Damages – Tort Law: A 21st-Century Approach
    The standard judicial formulation of the purpose of punitive damages is that it is to punish the defendant for reprehensible conduct and to deter him and others ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Uncompensated Torts - The Reading Room - Georgia State University
    These civil counterparts to criminal law provide causes of action for victims of physical violence, abuse, intimidating and threatening behavior, and theft.Missing: complement | Show results with:complement
  14. [14]
    [PDF] The Distinction Between Crime and Tort in the Early Common Law
    Crimes were prosecuted by actions known as indictments and appeals of felony. Torts were remedied by writs of trespass alleging use of force and arms against ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] The Future of Emotional Harm
    Why should tort law treat claims for emotional harm as a second-class citizen? Judicial skepticism about these claims is long entrenched, justified.Missing: centered | Show results with:centered
  16. [16]
    https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1663&context=faculty_scholarship
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Insuring Intentional Torts - Insight @ Dickinson Law
    There are better ways to deter and punish intentional misconduct than by requiring insureds to forfeit liability coverage for the injuries they intentionally ...
  18. [18]
    Intent – Tort Law: A 21st-Century Approach - CALI
    The former is the ordinary (or “purpose”) intent standard (intent to make contact) and the latter is “specific intent” which is not required (intent to produce ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] A Restatement (Third) of Intentional Torts?
    Jul 26, 2006 · called dual intent approach, requiring both an intent to ... torts of trespass to land and trespass to chattels simply depend upon who owns.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Intentional Torts
    Notice that the definition of "in- tent" can be satisfied by establishing that the defendant acted with either. (1) purpose (specific intent) or (2) knowledge ...Missing: purposeful | Show results with:purposeful<|control11|><|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Torts | The American Law Institute
    The Restatement of Torts offers comprehensive coverage of the law of torts, including intentional invasions, negligence, strict liability, and interference ...
  22. [22]
    nominal damages | Wex - Law.Cornell.Edu
    Nominal damages are a small monetary award granted to a plaintiff whose legal right has been violated but who has not suffered any actual, measurable harm. They ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] The Eggshell Skull Rule and Related Problems in Recovery for ...
    This difficulty applies in both intentional and negligent torts. Even for intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, many juris- dictions insist ...
  24. [24]
    Restatement Sec. 158, on Trespass to Land | H2O - Open Casebooks
    One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, ...Missing: requirement | Show results with:requirement
  25. [25]
    [PDF] CHAPTER 21 FALSE IMPRISONMENT OR ARREST A. LIABILITY
    This instruction is meant to cover the situations where the defendant has refused to release the plaintiff at the termination of a lawful confinement in jail, ...
  26. [26]
    trespass | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Trespass is knowingly entering another owners' property or land without permission, which encroaches on the owners' privacy or property interests.
  27. [27]
    Foundations of Law - Trespass to Land
    Common Intentional Torts, Part 2. Terms: Intrusion: Entry onto another ... Trespass to land is defined as a person's unlawful entry onto another's land.
  28. [28]
    trespass to chattels | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Trespass to chattels is a tort when a defendant intentionally interferes with another's personal property, causing harm, such as damaging or disrupting ...
  29. [29]
    Foundations of Law - Trespass to Chattels
    Trespass to Chattels is defined as committing any act of direct physical interference with a chattel possessed by another without lawful justification.
  30. [30]
    conversion | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Conversion is an intentional tort which occurs when a party takes the chattel property of another with the intent to deprive them of it.
  31. [31]
    Fouldes v Willoughby (1841) 8 M & W 540 - Lawprof.co
    In Fouldes v Willoughby, there is no conversion if goods are taken without the intention to treat them as one's own. The ferry operator put the plaintiff's ...Missing: trespass | Show results with:trespass
  32. [32]
    No. 41: Thyroff v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
    Mar 22, 2007 · Nationwide countered that a conversion claim cannot be based on the misappropriation of electronic records and data because New York does not ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Capturing Intangibles in a Property Restatement
    Property rights are protected though tort law. The torts ... 2018) (holding that pure copying of digital files without denial of access is not conversion).
  34. [34]
    LII Wex implied consent - Law.Cornell.Edu
    Implied consent is a defense to an intentional tort. The plaintiff's consent is implied when the plaintiff fails to object, or is silent in a situation.
  35. [35]
    Schoendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
    It is the settled rule that such a hospital is not liable for the negligence of its physicians and nurses in the treatment of patients.Missing: battery | Show results with:battery
  36. [36]
    13. Defenses Against the Intentional Torts - Tort Law - CALI
    Any consent given through fraud, mistake, duress or incapacity will cause the consent to be invalid. Consent. O'Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co., Ltd, Supreme ...
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Fraudulently Induced Consent to Intentional Torts - CORE
    The consent is invalid since the defendant knew about her mistake and took advantage of it.14 As a shorthand expression this situation is often called fraud in ...
  38. [38]
    volenti non fit injuria | Wex - Law.Cornell.Edu
    Volenti non fit injuria is Latin for “to a willing person, it is not a wrong.” This legal maxim holds that a person who knowingly and voluntarily risks danger ...
  39. [39]
    self-defense | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Self-defense is the use of force to protect oneself from an attempted injury by another. If justified, self-defense is a defense in criminal and tort law.
  40. [40]
    Foundations of Law - Self Defense - Lawshelf
    The final defense to an intentional tort that we will discuss is the privilege of arrest. Here, the law is divided into four parts; arrests by police officers, ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] 1. Intentional Torts a. Battery i. A acts ii. Intending to cause harmful ...
    Intentional Torts a. Battery i. A acts ii. Intending to cause harmful or offensive contact. 1. Intent is present when the defendant desires or is ...
  42. [42]
    Intentional infliction of harm in tort law | OUPblog
    Dec 14, 2015 · While this principle is now uncontroversial in cases of the intended infliction of physical harm (see Bird v Holbrook (1828)), the position ...Missing: self- defense
  43. [43]
    private necessity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    In tort law, private necessity is a defense to trespass when a defendant interferes with another's property in an emergency to property their own interests. It ...
  44. [44]
    [DOC] TORTS - Stanford Law School
    2.​ Incapacity is not a good defense to intent. Kids, crazy people, drunks are all capable of committing an intentional tort.
  45. [45]
    necessity defense | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    A necessity defense is a defense to liability for unlawful activity where the conduct cannot be avoided and one is justified in the particular conduct.
  46. [46]
    damages | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    In a tort case, the injured party can receive compensatory damages to compensate for all types of losses, including direct costs for medical car, property ...Actual damages · Compensatory damages · Tort damages · Punitive damagesMissing: general | Show results with:general
  47. [47]
    special damages | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    Special damages are damages like car dents or medical expenses that can actually be ascertained, and they are contrasted with general damages.Missing: compensatory | Show results with:compensatory
  48. [48]
    general damages | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    General damages refers to harm which arises directly and inevitably from a breach of contract or tort.
  49. [49]
    Compensatory Damages and Dignitary Harm in the Upcoming ...
    Nov 1, 2024 · This Article argues that the same dignitary harm principle should apply to constitutional torts: When the plaintiff proves a violation of constitutional rights,
  50. [50]
    eggshell skull rule | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    The eggshell skull rule, also called the thin skull rule, is a common law doctrine that holds a defendant liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's ...
  51. [51]
    Damages - Trespass - USLegal
    Damages · diminution of market value, · costs of restoration, · loss of use of the property[i], · physical injury to the person or to the land , · emotional distress ...
  52. [52]
    Punitive Damages - American Tort Reform Association
    Punitive damages are awarded not to compensate a plaintiff, but to punish a defendant for intentional or malicious misconduct and to deter similar future ...
  53. [53]
    What Are Punitive Damages? Purpose, Cap, Calculation, and ...
    Punitive damages are payments ordered on top of compensatory damages to punish defendants for grossly negligent or intentional conduct, and to deter future ...
  54. [54]
    Punitive Damages – Tort Law: A 21st-Century Approach - CALI
    The standard judicial formulation of the purpose of punitive damages is that it is to punish the defendant for reprehensible conduct and to deter him and others ...
  55. [55]
    STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL
    Apr 7, 2003 · The jury awarded the Campbells $2.6 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive damages, which the trial court reduced to $1 ...
  56. [56]
    https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/blawtorts.pdf
  57. [57]
    J. C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M. K. (1991)
    Obviously, punitive damages are permitted only in cases involving the most reprehensible and repugnant conduct. ... In sum, the language of section 533 prohibits ...
  58. [58]
    https://stgeorgeutahattorneys.com/liability-for-a-road-rage-incident
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Understanding the Differences Between 1) Intentional Tort Liability
    We define negligence as conduct that falls below the level necessary to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm. C. Strict liability. Strict liability ...
  60. [60]
    Examples of Driver Negligence in Car Accidents
    A driver who commits road rage is negligent. In fact, road rage may be more serious than negligence. It may be recklessness or intentional misconduct. Even if a ...
  61. [61]
    Liability for a Road Rage Incident | St George Personal Injury ...
    Road rage incidents typically result in both assault and battery. Assault is basically placing somewhere in fear of immediately being harmed, battery is ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  62. [62]
    Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 | National Case Law Archive
    Oct 5, 2025 · A man falsely told a woman her husband was badly injured in a practical joke. She suffered severe nervous shock and physical illness as a ...
  63. [63]
    [PDF] Damage Caps: Recent Trends in American Tort Law
    Damage caps and other limitations on damages have become increas- ingly important in American tort law during the past thirty years. This trend shows no signs ...
  64. [64]
    [PDF] A Comparative Analysis of the Tort of Intentional Infliction of ...
    The basic purpose was to understand the cause of action in cases of mental suffering and a comparative analysis between US, British and Australian laws. The ...
  65. [65]
    State Laws & Online Harassment
    Most states have laws addressing at least some aspects of “cyber” harassment, whether related to improper use of devices or harassing behaviors.
  66. [66]
    [PDF] France: French Tort Law in the Light of European Harmonization
    Dec 31, 2013 · The 2011 draft is limited to the law of civil delicts, abandoning the traditional distinction of delicts (intentional torts) and quasi- delicts ...
  67. [67]
    Should Wrongfulness be Required or is Fault Enough? Arts 1:101, 4 ...
    Apr 5, 2023 · This shows that, unlike in France, tort law in Germany keeps the element of fault separate from that of wrongfulness.7 Whereas Verschulden ...
  68. [68]
    EUR-Lex - 52003PC0427 - EN - European Union
    Article 3 - General rules. Article 3 lays down general rules for determining the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of a tort or delict.Missing: harmonization | Show results with:harmonization
  69. [69]
    Legislating Deepfakes and AI Tort Liability - Brown Rudnick Insights
    Oct 20, 2025 · The “DEFIANCE Act,” reintroduced in 2025 after passing the Senate in 2024, would go one step further by creating a private right of action for ...Missing: battery | Show results with:battery