Also known as: substantial certainty test · substantial-certainty tests · substantial certainty tests · substantial certainty · substantially certain
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard used to establish intent for intentional torts by which an actor is treated as intending the consequences of conduct when the actor knows those consequences are substantially certain to follow from the act.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nurse Carla rushed through a crowded hospital hallway carrying emergency supplies. She placed an open hand on visitor Victor's lower back to move him aside without any desire to offend him. Victor felt the contact was insulting and sued for battery. The court found no battery because Carla lacked knowledge that an offensive contact was substantially certain to result from her action.
Zenith Coastal directed employees to drive posts and moor boats that crossed the boundary into Edwin's cove. The company knew the exact location of the survey markers at the time of installation. Edwin sued for trespass after the boats and customers entered his land. The court held the invasion intentional because Zenith Coastal knew the entry was substantially certain to occur.
Two brothers helped their uncle escape prison by supplying weapons and driving the getaway car during an armed robbery. They knew the uncle had killed before and that further killings were substantially certain in the course of the escape. After the uncle murdered two people, the brothers were convicted of capital murder. The court upheld the convictions because their knowledge of substantial certainty satisfied the required mental state.
An accounting firm prepared an audit report knowing investors would rely on it to decide whether to purchase bonds. The firm knew material misstatements were substantially certain to mislead buyers. Several investors suffered losses after purchasing the bonds. The court applied the substantial-certainty test to determine whether the firm possessed the intent element for the investors' tort claim.
Five-year-old Brian pulled a chair away from the spot where his aunt was about to sit. He knew with substantial certainty that she would fall to the ground if the chair was missing. The aunt fell and was injured. The court held that Brian's knowledge satisfied the intent requirement for battery even though he did not desire her injury.
A prosecutor introduced a witness's prior statements after the defendant caused the witness to be unavailable. The defendant knew with substantial certainty that his conduct would prevent the witness from testifying. The court examined whether the substantial-certainty test established the intent element needed to admit the statements under the forfeiture doctrine.
The test treats an actor as intending harmful or offensive contact when the actor knows the contact is substantially certain to result even if the actor does not desire the contact. Purpose requires a conscious objective to cause the contact. Both satisfy the intent element under the Restatement definition of intent.
Supporting sources
…or apprehension. Such realization may make the actor’s conduct negligent or even reckless but unless he realizes that to a substantial certainty, the contact or apprehension will result, the actor has not that intention which is necessary to make him liable under the rule stated in this Section.” A battery would be established if,…
…"one intends certain consequences when he desires that his acts cause those consequences or knows that those consequences are
…relief any policy that authorizes persistent deprivations of constitutional rights as long as no individual can establish with substantial certainty
…as a basis for liability acts for the purpose of causing it, or knows that it is resulting from his conduct, or knows that it is substantially certain
No. The test requires knowledge that the contact is substantially certain to occur. Mere creation of an unreasonable risk of contact supports only negligence and does not satisfy the intent element for battery.
Supporting sources
Yes. A child meets the test when the child knows with substantial certainty that harmful or offensive contact will result from the act even if the child does not desire injury. Courts apply the same definition of intent used for adults.
Supporting sources
The test establishes intent when an actor knows with substantial certainty that third persons will enter the plaintiff's land as a result of the actor's conduct. The actor need not desire the entry itself.
Supporting sources
No. The test focuses on whether the actor knew harmful or offensive contact was substantially certain. An offensive contact that violates a reasonable sense of personal dignity is sufficient even without lasting injury.
Supporting sources