Torts: Intentional Torts

Intentional torts are civil wrongs grounded in purposeful conduct. Unlike negligence, which focuses on unreasonable carelessness, intentional torts require a plaintiff to show that the defendant acted with intent. In this context, intent does not mean hostility or a desire to cause injury in the everyday sense. It means the defendant either acted with the purpose to bring about a particular result or acted knowing with substantial certainty that the result would occur.

That mental state requirement matters because it separates intentional torts from accidents. It also shapes defenses, damages, and how courts evaluate responsibility for deliberate intrusions on personal security, property, and dignity.

What “Intent” Means in Intentional Torts

In most intentional torts, the plaintiff must prove intent to do the act that results in the legally prohibited contact, confinement, intrusion, or interference. Two common ways to satisfy intent are:

• Purpose (desire): The defendant’s goal was to cause the contact or invasion.
• Substantial certainty: The defendant knew the result was virtually sure to happen, even if it was not the goal.

This is a higher bar than “should have known” (negligence), but it does not require a desire to harm. A person can intend an act and still believe it is “just a joke,” yet remain liable if the law treats the result as a protected interest.

Battery

Battery protects bodily integrity. The core idea is simple: you may not intentionally cause harmful or offensive contact with another person.

Elements of Battery (in practical terms)

Battery generally requires:

1. Intentional act by the defendant
2. Contact with the plaintiff’s person (directly or indirectly)
3. The contact is harmful or offensive
4. Causation linking the act to the contact

“Contact” is broader than punching someone. It can include grabbing clothing, striking an object held by the plaintiff, or causing contact through another force. “Offensive” contact is judged by social norms, not hypersensitivity. A tap on the shoulder to get attention is typically not battery; spitting on someone typically is.

Example

If someone angrily snatches a phone out of another person’s hand, the interference with the person’s immediate physical space can qualify as offensive contact, even if no injury occurs.

Assault

Assault protects the mental interest in freedom from the apprehension of imminent contact. It is often paired with battery, but it can exist even when no contact occurs.

Elements of Assault

Assault generally requires:

1. Intentional act by the defendant
2. Creating reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff
3. Of imminent harmful or offensive contact

Two points commonly misunderstood:

• Assault is about apprehension, not fear. The plaintiff must perceive an immediate threat of contact, even if they are not frightened.
• “Imminent” means the threatened contact is about to happen, not at some undefined time in the future.

Example

Raising a fist and lunging toward someone in a way that makes them reasonably anticipate being struck can be assault, even if the punch never lands.

False Imprisonment

False imprisonment protects freedom of movement. It involves intentional confinement without lawful justification.

Elements of False Imprisonment

False imprisonment usually requires:

1. Intentional confinement of the plaintiff
2. Within boundaries set by the defendant
3. Without legal privilege or consent
4. The plaintiff is aware of the confinement or harmed by it

Confinement can be accomplished by physical barriers (locking a door), physical force, threats of force, or other coercion that would make a reasonable person believe they cannot leave. The boundary must be meaningful; merely discouraging someone from leaving does not necessarily count. If there is a reasonable, safe means of escape known to the plaintiff, confinement may fail.

Example

A store employee who blocks the exit and threatens to call the police unless a customer “confesses” to theft may risk false imprisonment if there is no legal authority to detain and the customer reasonably believes they cannot leave.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)

IIED addresses extreme misconduct that intentionally (or in some jurisdictions recklessly) causes severe emotional harm. It is not meant to cover everyday insults or rude behavior. Courts reserve it for conduct that goes beyond the bounds of decency.

Elements of IIED

A typical IIED claim requires:

1. Extreme and outrageous conduct
2. Intent to cause emotional distress (or reckless disregard of the probability)
3. Severe emotional distress
4. Causation

“Outrageous” is the key limiter. The standard is demanding: the behavior must be so extreme that society would view it as intolerable. Severity of distress is also critical; ordinary embarrassment, anger, or hurt feelings generally is not enough.

Practical context

IIED claims often arise from harassment, abuse of power, or targeted conduct exploiting known vulnerabilities. The more the defendant knows about a plaintiff’s susceptibility, the more likely conduct is treated as outrageous.

Trespass to Land

Trespass to land protects the right to exclusive possession of real property. It focuses on unauthorized physical entry or invasion.

Elements of Trespass to Land

Trespass to land typically requires:

1. Intentional entry onto land
2. In the possession of another
3. Without permission or legal privilege

The intent is to enter the land, not necessarily to trespass. If a person deliberately walks onto property believing it is public, they still intended the entry. Trespass can also occur through causing an object or third party to enter, or by remaining on the land after permission is revoked.

Example

Cutting across a fenced yard as a shortcut can be trespass even if no damage occurs. Actual damages are not always required; the invasion itself can support a claim.

Trespass to Chattels

Trespass to chattels protects possessory interests in personal property. It applies when someone intentionally interferes with another’s use or possession of a movable item, but the interference is relatively limited.

Elements and typical proof

Trespass to chattels generally involves:

• Intentional interference with chattel in another’s possession
• Resulting in actual harm, such as impairment, deprivation of use for a meaningful time, or damage

The “harm” requirement is important. Minor, momentary interferences often do not qualify unless they cause measurable loss.

Example

Borrowing someone’s laptop without permission and returning it later might become trespass to chattels if the owner loses important use during that period or if data is damaged.

Conversion

Conversion is a more serious interference with personal property than trespass to chattels. It is effectively a civil claim that the defendant treated the plaintiff’s property as their own.

Key idea

Conversion typically requires an intentional act that exercises dominion or control over the property in a way that is so substantial it justifies forcing the defendant to pay the property’s full value.

Courts consider factors such as the extent and duration of control, the defendant’s intent, and the resulting harm.

Example

Selling someone else’s equipment without permission is classic conversion. So is refusing to return property after a clear demand, when the refusal meaningfully deprives the rightful possessor.

How Intentional Torts Fit Together

Many disputes involve overlapping intentional torts:

• A threatened punch can be assault; if it lands, it becomes battery as well.
• Locking someone in a room can be false imprisonment; accompanying threats may also support IIED in extreme cases.
• Entering land to take an item can combine trespass to land and conversion.

What ties intentional torts together is the law’s insistence that certain interests are protected even without economic loss: bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, emotional well-being in extreme cases, and control over property.

Practical Takeaways

• Intentional tort liability often turns on small factual details: how immediate the threat was, whether a person had a safe way out, whether the contact violated social norms, or how substantial the interference with property became.
• “No harm intended” is not a complete answer. The focus is whether the defendant intended the act and knew what would almost certainly follow.
• Property torts scale in severity: trespass to chattels addresses limited interference; conversion addresses serious, ownership-like control.

Intentional torts sit at the core of civil accountability for deliberate invasions. They reflect a baseline legal expectation: people must keep their hands, threats, restraints, and intrusions within the bounds that the law recognizes as another person’s protected space.