Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of torts requiring proof that the defendant acted with intent to bring about a particular result that invades a legally protected interest of another. Intent exists when the actor desires the consequence or knows with substantial certainty that it will occur. Liability follows upon showing an act, intent, and causation, without regard to whether actual harm resulted.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Foreseeable Third-Party Battery
Imani Idowu left a loaded handgun unsecured on her kitchen table after a neighbor warned her that local youths had been breaking into homes. Ibrahim Iqbal, a teenager who had previously been caught trespassing nearby, entered the house and used the gun to shoot Isaac Irving during a confrontation. Because Imani realized or should have realized the likelihood that a third person would take the weapon and commit an intentional tort, her negligence does not relieve her of liability for the resulting harm.
Targeted Defamatory Post
Irene Ingalls, a blogger in State A, published a post falsely accusing Isabella Ingram of professional misconduct during a State B film production. Irene then purchased geo-targeted ads that appeared only to entertainment professionals in State B. The post caused Ingram to lose future contracts in State B. The effects test permits personal jurisdiction in State B because the intentional tort was expressly aimed at that forum and harm was known to be suffered there.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Corporate Recklessness on Defects
Imperial Motors executives learned from internal tests that a fuel tank defect caused fires in rear-end collisions. They chose not to redesign or recall the vehicles because paying future claims would be cheaper. After Iain Irons suffered severe burns in such a collision, a jury awarded both compensatory and punitive damages. The intentional corporate decision to expose drivers to known risks supports the punitive award.
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker554 U.S. 471 (2008)
Retaliatory Employment Action
Ivy Investments terminated Ibrahim Iqbal after he complained about discriminatory treatment. The company argued that other performance issues were the true cause. Because the evidence showed the complaint was a but-for cause of the discharge, the intentional retaliatory action supports liability under the applicable causation standard.
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar570 U.S. 338, 133 S. Ct. 2517, 186 L.Ed.2d 503 (2013)
Supervisor Harassment Claim
Island Manufacturing's supervisor repeatedly made sexually suggestive comments and unwanted physical contact toward Isabella Ingram. The company had no anti-harassment policy and failed to investigate complaints. The supervisor's intentional conduct occurred within the scope of employment, rendering the employer vicariously liable.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth524 U.S. 742 (1998)
Hostile Work Environment
Ironclad Industries allowed a group of coworkers to subject Irene Ingalls to repeated offensive touching and derogatory remarks over several months. Management received multiple complaints but took no action. The intentional conduct created a hostile environment for which the employer bears liability.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton524 U.S. 775 (1998)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What elements must a plaintiff prove to establish an intentional tort?+
A plaintiff must show an act by the defendant, intent to bring about the harmful or offensive result, and causation linking the act to the invasion of the protected interest. Intent is satisfied when the defendant desires the consequence or knows with substantial certainty that it will occur.
How does intent for intentional torts differ from the mental state required for negligence?+
Intentional torts require the defendant to have desired or known with substantial certainty that the particular result would occur. Negligence requires only that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, without any purpose or substantial certainty regarding the specific harm.
When may nominal damages be awarded for an intentional tort?+
Nominal damages are available when the plaintiff proves all elements of the tort but cannot show actual compensable loss. The award recognizes the violation of a legal right even if no physical injury or economic harm occurred.
Does a plaintiff's failure to mitigate always limit recovery in an intentional tort case?+
A plaintiff's unreasonable failure to mitigate limits recovery only if the plaintiff intentionally or heedlessly ignored a known danger. When the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, the plaintiff is not automatically barred from recovering for worsened harm.
554 U.S. 471 (2008)Torts
…64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938), general common law, that "[t]hough [a] principal is liable to make compensation for [intentional torts] by his agent, he is not liable to be punished by exemplary damages for an intent in which he did not participate." 147 U.S., at 110, 13 S. Ct. 261. Because maritime law remains federal…