| Part of thecommon law series |
| Tort law |
|---|
| (Outline) |
| Trespass to the person |
| Property torts |
| Dignitary torts |
| Negligent torts |
| Principles of negligence |
| Strict andabsolute liability |
| Nuisance |
| Economic torts |
| Defences |
| Liability |
| Legal remedy |
| Other topics in tort law |
| By jurisdiction |
| Othercommon law areas |
Anintentional tort is a category oftorts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of thetortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The termnegligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, whilestrict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.
As a matter ofpublic policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. To preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare,society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in theUnited States, it is easier to getpunitive damages (damages above and beyondcompensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. Similarly, in most Australian jurisdictions, intentional torts are not included in civil liability legislation, thus excluding the threshold of injury and damages payouts from various legislated limitations and caps.[1] But it is harder to prove intentional torts because as with many felony crimes, one must prove subjective elements involving the content of the defendant's mind, and defendants do not always express their harmful intent out loud or in writing.
Intentional torts are most directly contrasted with negligent torts. The key difference between the two categories of tort is that the plaintiff must prove theadditional element that the defendant acted with the specificintent to perform (i.e., acted with a mental state of intentionally performing) the act that was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (so-calledmalice), as opposed to simply violating a generalduty of care as plaintiffs must prove in suits for negligence. "The concept of 'intention' in the intentional torts does not require that defendants know that their acts will result in harm to the plaintiffs. Defendants must know only that their acts will result in certain consequences."[2] Under the doctrine of thetransferred intent, the plaintiff may instead prove that the defendant intended to commit any intentional tort against any person rather than the specific injury that actually occurred.
Not every intentional action qualifies as an intentional tort. Suppose an investor holding more than half of a corporation's stock votes on changes the other stockholders find detrimental. If the other stockholders sufferdamages as a result, this is not a tort (in the majority of jurisdictions), as the powerful investor had a right to vote whichever way he liked. Thus, the other stockholders cannot sue the aforementioned investor for damages. (California is the notable exception to this rule, at least as to closely held corporations.[3][4]) If, however, John Doe physically attacks a passerby in the street, John is liable for these costs, as he is guilty of the tort ofbattery. Actual damages are not required for a prima facie case of battery.
To successfully sue adefendant liable for an intentional tort, theplaintiff must prove that the defendant performed the action leading to the damages the plaintiff alleges, and that the defendant acted with purpose, or that he had knowledge withsubstantial certainty that an act would result in a tortious result. A famous case in the 1800s involved a hemophiliac child (Vosburg) who was kicked by another child (Putney) at school, resulting in severe disability of the leg. Although the kicker could not have reasonably foreseen that the kick would cause severe disability, he certainly could have foreseen that it would cause discomfort, and was found liable.
For example, a plaintiff attempting to prove that a defendant committed the intentional tort ofbattery must fulfill several elements: intent, an act, cause, and harmful or offensive contact.
Here, "intent" means either purpose or "knowledge with substantial certainty," as elucidated inGarratt v. Dailey. "Cause" in an intentional tort need only be "actual cause;" that is, but for the defendant's action the tortious result would not have occurred. The plaintiff need not allege or prove proximate cause, which would indicate that the result of the defendant's actions was reasonably foreseeable.
Within the broader category of intentional torts, there are two subcategories that are typically treated as distinct types of tort in their own right and are categorised according to the type of right they infringe upon:
Intentional torts that do not fall into one of these two subcategories are typically related to physical or emotional injuries and stress and include the following:
Generally, intentional torts are uninsurable as a matter of public policy, meaning that tortfeasors guilty of such torts must pay damages out of their own pocket (if they have any money worth going after). Otherwise, professional criminals could obtainliability insurance to insure against the risk of being caught and prosecuted by the state, or sued in civil actions by their victims.
This rule has not precluded defendants from litigating the intentionality of particular torts and thus argue that their liability insurers would have a duty to defend and indemnify them. TheSupreme Court of California forcefully shot down one such attempt: "[California Insurance Code] Section 533 precludes coverage in this case becausechild molestation isalways intentional, it isalways wrongful, and it isalways harmful."[5]
