Intentional Torts: A Complete Guide to Civil Wrongs Done on Purpose

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney. Always consult with a lawyer for guidance on your specific legal situation.

Imagine you're walking down a crowded sidewalk. In one scenario, someone rushing past accidentally bumps into you, knocking your phone from your hand. It's frustrating, an accident born of carelessness. This is the world of negligence. Now, imagine a different scenario: someone, angry after an argument, deliberately shoves you, causing you to fall and your phone to shatter. The outcome is similar, but the action behind it is fundamentally different. It wasn't an accident; it was a choice. That choice—that deliberate, willful act—is the heart of an intentional tort. While a crime is a wrong against the state, prosecuted by the government, a tort is a “civil wrong” against an individual. Intentional torts are the category of civil wrongs committed on purpose. They are the law's way of saying that you have a right to be free from deliberately inflicted harm, whether to your body, your property, your reputation, or your peace of mind. Understanding this concept is the first step toward holding someone accountable for the harm they knowingly caused.

• Key Takeaways At-a-Glance:
• Intentional torts are wrongful civil acts committed on purpose that cause injury to another person, their property, or their reputation. tort_law.
• Unlike accidents, intentional torts involve a defendant's deliberate action or knowledge with substantial certainty that harm would result, which can lead to more significant damages, including punitive_damages.
• If you believe you are a victim, identifying the specific type of tort—such as battery, defamation, or false_imprisonment—is a critical first step in seeking a legal remedy.

The concept of holding people accountable for purposeful harm is as old as law itself. The roots of modern intentional torts stretch back to the early English common_law system, long before the United States was founded. In the 12th and 13th centuries, if you were wronged, you couldn't just file a lawsuit as we do today. You had to seek a specific “writ” from the King's courts. The foundational writ was the “writ of trespass.” Initially, it covered direct, forceful injuries, like being physically struck or having your land invaded. The logic was simple: the King had an interest in keeping the peace, and direct violence was a breach of the King's Peace. These early cases focused on the physical act itself, not necessarily the defendant's state of mind. Over centuries, courts began to make a crucial distinction. They developed a new action, “trespass on the case,” to handle injuries that were indirect or accidental. This was the seed that would eventually blossom into the law of negligence. By separating accidental harms from direct, willful ones, the law began to formalize the very idea of “intent.” The old writ of trespass evolved into the family of intentional torts we know today—battery, assault, false imprisonment, and others. When the American colonies adopted English common law, they brought these principles with them. As society grew more complex, so did the law. Courts recognized new ways people could be intentionally harmed, leading to the development of torts like intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress and invasion_of_privacy to address more subtle, non-physical injuries. This evolution continues today, as courts grapple with how these ancient principles apply to the digital age of cyberbullying and online defamation.

Unlike many areas of law that are defined by detailed legislative acts, intentional torts are primarily a creature of common law. This means the rules have been developed over centuries through judicial decisions in individual cases. A judge in a case today will look to the rulings of past judges—a concept known as stare_decisis or precedent—to determine the outcome. While there isn't a single federal “Intentional Torts Act,” there are highly influential legal guides that courts across the country rely on. The most important is the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a scholarly work published by the American Law Institute. While not legally binding itself, the Restatement clarifies and synthesizes the common law rules for torts, and judges frequently cite its definitions. For example, the Restatement provides the classic definition of battery:

“An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.”

A judge in California or Florida dealing with a battery case will almost certainly consult this definition to guide their analysis. Some states have “codified” these common law principles, meaning they have passed statutes that write the rules for torts like assault and battery directly into the state's legal code. However, even in those states, courts still look to the rich history of common law to interpret what those statutes mean in practice.

Because intentional torts are largely governed by state law, the specific rules can vary significantly from one state to another. A successful claim in one state might fail in another. This is especially true for more modern torts like Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), where states disagree on how “outrageous” the conduct must be. Here is a comparison of how IIED is handled in four representative states:

To understand intentional torts, it's best to break them down into categories based on the interest they protect. First, let's clarify the single most important element: Intent.

In everyday language, “intent” means you wanted a specific result to happen. In tort law, the definition is broader. A person acts with legal “intent” if:

• Specific Intent: They had the purpose or desire to cause the harmful consequence. (e.g., They punch someone because they want to hurt them).
• General Intent / Substantial Certainty: They know with “substantial certainty” that a particular outcome will occur, even if they don't specifically desire it. (e.g., A prankster pulls a chair out from under someone as they are sitting down. They may not desire to break the person's hip, but they know with substantial certainty that a harmful or offensive contact is going to happen).

A key concept is also transferred intent. If you intend to commit a tort against Person A, but you accidentally harm Person B, your intent “transfers” to Person B. If you swing a bat intending to hit Alex but miss and hit Ben, you are still liable for battery against Ben.

These torts protect your physical and mental integrity.

Assault is not the physical contact itself. It is the act of intentionally causing a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

• Elements:

1. An intentional act by the defendant.

  2.  That creates a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff.
  3.  Of an immediate (imminent) battery.
* **Example:** A disgruntled customer raises their fist and lunges toward a cashier, screaming, "I'm going to punch you!" Even if they are stopped before making contact, the cashier can sue for assault because the threat of immediate harm was credible and intentional. Words alone are usually not enough; they must be coupled with a threatening action.

Battery is the completion of the assault. It is the intentional act of causing a harmful or offensive contact with another person.

• Elements:

1. An intentional act by the defendant.

  2.  That results in harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person.
* **Example:** Following the assault example above, if the customer actually punches the cashier, that is a battery. The contact does not have to cause a serious injury; an "offensive" contact, like an unwanted kiss or spitting on someone, is also a battery.

This tort protects your freedom of movement. It occurs when a person is intentionally confined or restrained to a bounded area against their will, and they are aware of the confinement.

• Elements:

1. An intentional act of restraint by the defendant.

  2.  That confines the plaintiff within a bounded area.
  3.  The plaintiff is aware of the confinement or is harmed by it.
* **Example:** A security guard, with no reasonable suspicion, locks a shopper in a back room for an hour to question them about shoplifting. The shopper is being falsely imprisoned. The restraint can be through physical barriers, force, threats of force, or an invalid assertion of legal authority.

This is a modern tort designed to protect one's right to “tranquility of mind.” It provides a remedy for severe emotional harm caused by another's extreme and outrageous behavior.

• Elements:

1. An intentional or reckless act by the defendant.

  2.  The conduct must be "extreme and outrageous."
  3.  The conduct must cause the plaintiff to suffer.
  4.  Severe emotional distress.
* **Example:** A debt collector, knowing a person's child recently died, repeatedly calls them and says, "Pay up, or we'll dig up your child's grave." This conduct is so far beyond the bounds of decency that it could support a claim for IIED.

These torts protect your rights to own and use your property without interference.

This occurs when a person intentionally enters or causes something to enter the land of another without permission.

• Elements:

1. An intentional act by the defendant.

  2.  That results in a physical invasion of the plaintiff's real property.
* **Example:** A neighbor builds a fence that is two feet over your property line. That is a trespass. So is walking across someone's lawn, throwing a rock onto their property, or refusing to leave after being asked. You don't have to prove any actual damage to the land to win a trespass claim; the violation of your right to exclude others is itself the harm.

“Chattels” is simply an old legal term for personal property—anything you own that isn't land. This tort involves minor, temporary interference with another person's property.

• Elements:

1. An intentional act by the defendant.

  2.  That interferes with the plaintiff's right of possession of a chattel.
  3.  The interference causes some actual damage or dispossession.
* **Example:** Your roommate takes your laptop for an hour without permission to check their email. While annoying, they didn't destroy it. You might be able to sue for the "rental value" of that hour. This tort covers minor acts of meddling with someone else's stuff.

Conversion is a more serious version of trespass to chattels. It is the intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.

• Elements:

1. An intentional act by the defendant.

  2.  That constitutes a serious interference with the plaintiff's possessory rights.
* **Analogy:** Trespass to chattels is taking a car for a joyride and returning it. Conversion is stealing the car and selling it for parts. The remedy for conversion is a "forced sale"—the defendant must pay the full market value of the item at the time it was taken.

Defamation is the act of communicating a false statement to a third party that harms another person's reputation.

• Types:
  • Libel: Defamation in a written or other permanent form (e.g., a newspaper article, a blog post, an email).
  • Slander: Defamation in a spoken or other transient form.
• Elements:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.

  2.  An unprivileged "publication" (communication) to a third party.
  3.  Fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher.
  4.  Damages to the plaintiff's reputation.
* **Public Figure Exception:** Under the landmark case [[new_york_times_co_v_sullivan]], public officials and figures must prove an additional element: **actual malice**. This means the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

This is not one tort, but a family of four, protecting your “right to be let alone.”

• Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Intentionally intruding, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or private affairs of another in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (e.g., planting a hidden camera in a bedroom).
• Appropriation of Name or Likeness: Using another's name or picture for commercial advantage without their consent (e.g., a company using a celebrity's photo in an ad without permission).
• False Light: Publicizing a matter concerning another that places them in a “false light” that is highly offensive to a reasonable person (e.g., publishing a photo of an honest war hero under the headline “Local Man Arrested in Fraud Scheme”).
• Public Disclosure of Private Facts: Publicizing private information about another that is not of legitimate public concern and would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (e.g., a newspaper publishing a private citizen's sensitive medical records).

• Plaintiff: The person who has been injured and is filing the lawsuit. Their goal is to prove the elements of the tort and receive a remedy, usually in the form of monetary damages.
• Defendant: The person accused of committing the tort. Their goal is to disprove the plaintiff's claims or establish a valid legal defense, such as consent or self-defense.
• Attorneys: The legal professionals who represent the plaintiff and defendant. They gather evidence, file motions, and argue the case in court.
• Judge: The public official who presides over the case. The judge rules on legal issues, ensures procedural rules are followed, and, in a bench trial, decides the outcome of the case.
• Jury: A group of citizens who listen to the evidence and decide the facts of the case, including whether the defendant is liable and the amount of damages to be awarded.

Facing a deliberate harm can be traumatic and confusing. This guide provides a structured approach, but it is no substitute for consulting a qualified attorney.

1. Your Well-being is Paramount: If you are in physical danger (e.g., an ongoing assault, battery, or false imprisonment situation), your first priority is to get to a safe place.
2. Contact Authorities: Call 911 or local police. A police_report can be a crucial piece of evidence later, even if the prosecutor decides not to press criminal charges. The civil case for a tort is separate from any criminal case.
3. Seek Medical Attention: Even if you feel fine, see a doctor. Some injuries are not immediately apparent. Medical records create a vital paper trail linking the incident to your physical harm.

1. Document Everything: The moment you are able, write down everything you remember about the incident: what happened, when, where, who was involved, and who witnessed it.
2. Physical Evidence: Take pictures of any injuries, property damage, or the location where the incident occurred. If your clothes were torn or bloodied, save them in a paper bag.
3. Digital Evidence: Take screenshots of harassing text messages, emails, defamatory social media posts, or any other digital communication. Do not delete them.
4. Witness Information: Get the names and contact information of anyone who saw what happened. Their testimony can be invaluable.

1. Match Facts to Torts: Review the descriptions in Part 2. Are you dealing with a battery? Defamation? Conversion? Understanding the specific legal claim helps focus your evidence-gathering.
2. Anticipate Defenses: The defendant will likely raise a defense. The most common defenses to intentional torts are:
   • Consent: The plaintiff agreed to the conduct (e.g., voluntarily playing in a football game implies consent to being tackled).
   • Self-Defense: The defendant used reasonable force to protect themselves from an imminent threat.
   • Defense of Others: The defendant used reasonable force to protect a third person from an imminent threat.
   • Defense of Property: A person may use reasonable, non-deadly force to protect their property.

1. Compensatory Damages: These are meant to “make you whole” again. They include:
   • Special Damages: Quantifiable economic losses like medical bills, lost wages, and costs to repair or replace property.
   • General Damages: Non-economic losses like pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
2. Punitive Damages: In cases of egregious or malicious conduct, a court may award punitive_damages. These are not to compensate the victim but to punish the defendant and deter similar conduct in the future. They are much more common in intentional tort cases than in negligence cases.

1. The statute_of_limitations is a strict deadline for filing a lawsuit. If you miss it, your claim is barred forever.
2. These deadlines vary by state and by the type of tort. For example, in many states, you might have only one year to file a lawsuit for defamation but two or three years for a battery claim. It is absolutely critical to determine the deadline in your jurisdiction.

1. Find a Specialist: Look for an attorney who specializes in personal_injury or tort law. Most offer a free initial consultation.
2. Bring Your Evidence: Organize all the documentation you gathered in Step 2 and bring it to your consultation. This will help the attorney assess the strength of your case.
3. Understand the Fee Structure: Most personal injury lawyers work on a “contingency fee” basis, meaning they only get paid if you win your case, typically taking a percentage (e.g., 30-40%) of your final award.

• Demand Letter: This is often the first formal step. It's a letter sent by your attorney to the person who harmed you (or their insurance company), outlining your legal claims, the facts of the case, and demanding a specific amount of money to settle the dispute out of court. A well-written demand letter can often lead to a settlement without ever filing a lawsuit.
• Complaint (Legal): If the demand letter is unsuccessful, the next step is to file a complaint_(legal) with the court. This is the official legal document that starts the lawsuit. It identifies the parties, states the factual and legal basis for your claims (e.g., Count 1: Battery; Count 2: IIED), and specifies the relief you are seeking from the court.
• Police Report: As mentioned, if the tortious act was also a crime (like an assault), the police report provides an official, contemporaneous account of the incident. It can contain witness statements, officer observations, and other facts that are extremely useful in a civil case.

• The Backstory: A five-year-old boy, Brian Dailey, visited his aunt, Ruth Garratt. As Ms. Garratt was about to sit in a lawn chair, Brian pulled it out from under her. She fell and fractured her hip.
• The Legal Question: Could a five-year-old be held liable for battery? Did he have the necessary “intent” to harm his aunt?
• The Court's Holding: The Washington Supreme Court ruled that intent to harm was not necessary. All that was required was for the defendant to act with “substantial certainty” that a harmful or offensive contact would result. The court sent the case back to the trial court to determine if Brian knew with substantial certainty that his aunt would try to sit where the chair had been. (The trial court found that he did, and he was held liable).
• How It Impacts You Today: This case cemented the “substantial certainty” prong of intent. It means that you can be liable for an intentional tort even if you didn't mean to hurt anyone. If you engage in a “prank” where injury is a near-certain outcome, you can't defend yourself by saying, “I was just joking.”

• The Backstory: Two schoolboys, Vosburg and Putney, were in a classroom. Putney lightly kicked Vosburg in the shin. The kick was not malicious and barely left a mark. Unbeknownst to Putney, Vosburg had a previous injury in that same spot, and the slight kick aggravated it, leading to a severe infection and permanent disability.
• The Legal Question: Is a defendant responsible for the unforeseeable, severe harm that results from a minor battery?
• The Court's Holding: Yes. The court established the “eggshell plaintiff” rule (or “thin skull” rule). This rule states that you must “take your victim as you find them.” If you commit an intentional tort, you are responsible for all the resulting damages, even if they are surprisingly severe due to a pre-existing condition of the plaintiff.
• How It Impacts You Today: The eggshell plaintiff rule is a powerful tool for victims. It prevents a defendant from arguing, “I barely touched him, I shouldn't be responsible for his rare medical condition.” If your intentional act causes harm, you are on the hook for all of it.

• The Backstory: Hustler Magazine published a parody advertisement suggesting that the prominent televangelist Reverend Jerry Falwell had a drunken, incestuous encounter with his mother in an outhouse. Falwell sued for, among other things, intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress.
• The Legal Question: Can a public figure win an IIED claim for a satirical publication, or is such speech protected by the first_amendment?
• The Court's Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Hustler Magazine. The Court held that public figures cannot recover for IIED based on a parody or satire without also showing that the publication contained a false statement of fact made with “actual malice” (the same high standard used for defamation).
• How It Impacts You Today: This case creates a major constitutional limit on IIED claims. It protects satire, political cartoons, and other forms of harsh criticism directed at public figures, ensuring that the tort can't be used as a weapon to silence free speech.

The digital world has created new arenas for old torts. The most significant modern battleground is the application of IIED and defamation to online behavior.

• Cyberbullying and Online Harassment: Can a campaign of coordinated online harassment, even if no single post is “extreme,” collectively amount to IIED? Courts are struggling with this question. While a single nasty comment is not enough, a relentless, targeted campaign of abuse might be. Cases are starting to explore the liability of those who organize “dogpiling” or “doxing” (publicly releasing private information).
• SLAPP Suits: In defamation cases, a growing concern is the use of strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation (SLAPP) suits. These are lawsuits, often for defamation, filed by wealthy individuals or corporations not to win, but to intimidate and silence critics (like journalists or community activists) with the threat of overwhelming legal fees. Many states have passed “anti-SLAPP” statutes to allow for the quick dismissal of these meritless suits.

The next decade will see intentional tort law challenged by rapidly advancing technology.

• AI and Deepfakes: What happens when an AI is used to create a “deepfake” video that realistically depicts a person saying or doing something defamatory or invasive? Who is liable? The person who created it? The owner of the AI? The platform that hosts it? This could lead to new forms of “false light” invasion of privacy or defamation claims that courts are not yet equipped to handle.
• Virtual Torts: As people spend more time in immersive virtual reality environments (the “metaverse”), questions will arise about harms committed there. Can your avatar be “battered” or “falsely imprisoned” in a virtual space? Can the destruction of valuable virtual property constitute conversion? Courts will have to decide whether these virtual harms cause real-world emotional or financial damage sufficient to justify a legal remedy.
• Platform Liability: The debate over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally shields online platforms from liability for user-generated content, is central. If these protections are weakened, companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google could face a wave of lawsuits for defamatory or harassing content posted by their users, fundamentally changing the landscape of online speech.

• assault: An intentional act that creates a reasonable fear of an imminent battery.
• battery: An intentional act that causes harmful or offensive physical contact.
• causation: The legal principle of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, such as an injury.
• common_law: Law derived from judicial decisions rather than from statutes.
• consent: A defense to an intentional tort where the plaintiff willingly agreed to the defendant's conduct.
• conversion: The intentional and serious interference with another's property, justifying a forced sale.
• damages: Monetary compensation awarded to a party for loss or injury.
• defamation: A false statement communicated to a third party that harms a person's reputation.
• defendant: The party who is being sued in a civil lawsuit.
• false_imprisonment: The intentional confinement of a person against their will.
• intent: The state of mind where a person desires a particular outcome or knows it is substantially certain to occur.
• liability: Legal responsibility for one's acts or omissions.
• negligence: The failure to exercise a reasonable standard of care, resulting in harm (an accidental tort).
• plaintiff: The party who initiates a lawsuit.
• punitive_damages: Damages exceeding simple compensation, awarded to punish the defendant.
• self-defense: A legal justification for using reasonable force to protect oneself from harm.
• tort: A civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.
• trespass_to_land: The intentional physical invasion of another's real property without permission.

• negligence
• tort_law
• personal_injury
• damages
• defamation
• statute_of_limitations
• civil_procedure