INTENTIONAL TORT AT A GLANCE

Submitted By

Md. Hasanul Haque

ID: 16-01-21-22

Batch: Twenty-Seven

Program: LL. B (Hons.)

ASA University Bangladesh

Submitted To

Muhammad Azizur Rahman

Lecturer

Faculty of Law

ASA University Bangladesh

Acknowledgement

I would like to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regard to my Muhammad Azizur Rahman sir, for his exemplary guidance, valuable feedback and constant encouragement throughout the duration of the term paper. His valuable suggestions were of immense help the rough out my project work. His perceptive criticism kept me working to make this project in a much better way. Working under him/her was an extremely knowledgeable experience for me.

INTENTIONAL TORT AT A GLANCE

Introduction:

A "tort" is some kind of wrongful act that causes harm to someone else. This definition covers a wide range of actions, and the legal field of torts is split up into many different subcategories. One of the ways torts are split up is by the mental state of the person that does the wrongdoing. When the person that acts wrongly actually intends to perform the action, it becomes what is known as an "intentional tort."

The easiest example of an intentional tort is a punch to the face. In that case, the actor intended to make a fist and slam it into his victims face, and the actor also intended to harm his victim. However, the person who performs an intentional tort need not intend the harm. For example, if you surprise someone with an unstable heart condition, and the fright causes that person to have a heart attack, you commit an intentional tort, even if you did not intend to scare that person into a heart attack.

Intentional Tort:

Torts are acts committed by one or more individuals or entities that result in harm to another individual or entity. The harm is often physical injury, but it can also include reputational harm or property damages. Most torts are caused by negligence or carelessness, but some are intentional. Intentional torts, such as battery or false imprisonment, are those that carry an element of intent. Generally, intentional torts are harder to prove than negligence, since a plaintiff must show that the defendant did something on purpose.

Elements of Intentional Tort:

Proving an intentional tort requires that the victim show the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform the act that caused the injuries or damage. The defendant does not necessarily have to know that injuries would occur as a result of the act, just that the act is subject to consequences. In order to successfully sue another person for intentional tort, certain elements must be in place:

Intent

Intent is defined as acting with purpose or having knowledge that the act in question can cause injury or harm to another person. If the element of intent is not in place, it can be referred to simply as a tort.

Acting

Acting requires the person to perform an act that results in harm or injury to another. Thinking about or planning to perform an act does not constitute acting.

Actual Cause

This element requires the victim to prove that, without the defendant’s actions or “causes,” the injuries or damage would not have occurred.

The frame of mind a person must be in when he commits an intentional tort differs from the frame of mind required for negligence. In a negligence case, the injured person only needs to prove that the person who injured him failed to act with reasonable care to prevent the injury. In an intentional torts case, however, the injured person must prove that the person who injured him either meant to do it, understood it would happen, or threw all caution to the winds before acting.

Types Intentional Torts:

Intentional torts are harms committed by one person against another, where the underlying act was done on purpose (as opposed to harms which result from negligence).

Civil injury lawsuits for intentional torts are generally limited to the following types of cases: assault, battery, false imprisonment, conversion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud/deceit, trespass (to land and property), and defamation. Some courts will also hear an intentional tort case where the defendant intended to commit the act that harmed the plaintiff, but none of the preexisting categories fit the facts. These different intentional torts are discussed briefly below.

Battery:

This is the legal term for hitting someone, which comes from the verb "to batter." This covers a surprising range of activities, including sending projectiles into someone else's body, as in firing a gun.

Assault:

An assault is an attempted battery, or threatening injury when no battery takes place.

False Imprisonment:

The technical definition of false imprisonment is "confinement without legal authority." Generally, no one is allowed to restrict another person's movement against her will. There are two major exceptions to this. Police generally have authority to detain people they reasonably suspect of crimes. The other exception is called the "shopkeeper's privilege," which allows shopkeepers to keep people they suspect of shoplifting for a reasonable amount of time.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

This is a particularly difficult tort to prove in court. In order to prove a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff has to prove that someone else engaged in extreme or outrageous conduct, with the intent of frightening someone else, and caused severe emotional distress or bodily harm.

Fraud:

This is the legal term for lying to someone. In order to succeed in a suit for fraud, plaintiffs generally have to prove that the speaker knew that he was saying something false, that the other person would believe him, that the other person would rely on that information, and that the other person would be harmed by relying on this information.

Defamation:

Defamation is when someone says something false about someone else, and that lie causes harm. It includes both written (traditionally, libel) and spoken (traditionally, slander) words.

Invasion of Privacy:

The exact nature of invasion of privacy varies by state, but there are generally f our types of invasions of privacy. Invasion of solitude, in which someone interferes with someone else's right to be left alone; Public disclosure of private facts; False light, in which someone publishes not true, but not defamatory facts about someone else; and appropriation, which is the unauthorized use of someone else's likeness for profit.

Trespass:

Trespass comes in two forms: trespass to land, and trespass to chattel, or personal property. In either case, trespass means using the property without permission of the owner.

Conversion:

Conversion is when someone takes someone else's property and "converts" it to their own. In the criminal world, this is known as stealing.

Difference Between Intentional Tort and Negligence:

The key difference between intentional torts and negligent torts is that the plaintiff must prove the additional element that the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform (i.e., acted with a mental state of intentionally performing) the act which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries (so-called malice). "The concept of 'intention' in the intentional torts does not require defendants to know that their acts will result in harm to the plaintiffs. Defendants must know only that their acts will result in certain consequences". Under doctrines such as transferred intent, the plaintiff need not always prove that the defendant acted with the intent to bring about 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 suffer damages 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.) If, however, John Doe physically attacks a passerby in the street, John is liable for these costs, as he is guilty of the tort of battery. Actual damages are not required for a prima facie case of battery.

To successfully sue a defendant liable for an intentional tort, the plaintiff 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 with substantial certainty that an act would result in a tortious result. A famous case in the 1800s involved a hemophiliac child (Vos burg) who was kicked by another child (Putney) at school, resulting in severe disability of the leg. Although the kcker 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 of battery 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 in Garratt 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.

Intentional Tort and Crime:

Many intentional torts are classified as both criminal and civil acts. An intentional tort which is the subject of criminal prosecution often results in a civil suit between the parties. If the defendant in the civil lawsuit loses, he may be ordered to pay the injured party monetary damages. Unlike the civil cases brought for intentional tort, the prosecution for the criminal act does not focus on monetary reimbursement to the victim, but rather protecting the public and punishing the guilty party.

Some crimes fall under both categories of tort law. Battery is just one instance an intentional tort that is also a crime. In this case, the injured party may choose to file a civil lawsuit seeking damages from the defendant, whether or not the accused person has been found guilty in criminal court.

Conclusion: