Intentional torts

The Intent Gate: The Open-Book Floor Before Liability

The NCBE entry for Intentional torts is NOT STARRED. Unstarred means legal resources may be supplied when the topic is tested. If it is tested without resources, you need only demonstrate recognition that the topic is at issue. You are not required to hold this topic cold because resources may be supplied. You will not know at item time whether they are coming, so you need a fast working floor.

The governing subject is Torts, using common-law intentional-tort principles unless supplied authority changes the rule. The five NCBE sub-areas are intent, assault and battery; false imprisonment and emotional distress; intentional torts to property; consent as a defense; and privileges and other defenses. Negligence and information torts appear as separate NCBE entries, so keep their analyses separate.

The floor is the vocabulary, the doctrine names, the shape of each checklist, and the order of the questions. You must recognize facts suggesting contact, threatened contact, confinement, extreme conduct, entry onto land, interference with a chattel, or serious dominion over property. You must know to reach for rules on intent, consent, privilege, transferred intent, and the specific tort. You do not have to retain exact element wording, exception lists, or numbered subsections. Those contents are the material you read from supplied authority.

Intent is present when the actor acts with the purpose of producing the relevant result or knows that result is substantially certain to occur. Mere foreseeability or awareness of a risk is not enough. A person who swings a stick intending to hit someone has the necessary intent even without intending injury. A person who carelessly swings it while merely recognizing a possibility of contact ordinarily has negligence-type conduct, not an intentional tort.

Motive is irrelevant to the intent gate. A well-meaning prankster, rescuer, or angry defendant can possess the required intent. The question is what result the actor intended or knew was substantially certain, not why the actor acted.

Transferred intent moves the required intent from one protected interest or person to another. It applies among battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Thus, an intended battery that instead produces contact with a bystander can support battery against the bystander. The intent transfers; a privilege, if applicable, may still defeat liability. Transferred intent generally does not create an IIED or conversion claim merely because one of the five listed torts was intended.

Loading diagram…

Contact, Threat, and Confinement: Three Different Human Intrusions

Battery requires an intentional act causing harmful or offensive contact with the claimant’s person. Contact may be direct or indirect, such as setting a trap or causing an object to strike someone. “Offensive” is ordinarily judged by whether the contact would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity, although known unusual sensitivity can matter. The claimant need not know about the contact when it occurs. Intent to cause the contact is enough; intent to injure is unnecessary.

Assault requires intent to cause harmful or offensive contact or to cause imminent apprehension of such contact, plus the claimant’s awareness of the threatened contact. The apprehension must concern imminent contact, not a vague future possibility. A raised fist accompanied by a movement forward may qualify. Words alone usually do not, but words can make conduct threatening in context. The claimant need not be terrified. The question is whether the claimant reasonably perceived the imminent contact.

False imprisonment requires intentional confinement of a person within boundaries fixed by the defendant, without consent or privilege. Confinement may result from physical barriers, physical force, threats of immediate force, invalid assertion of legal authority, or conduct that leaves no reasonable safe means of escape. Moral pressure alone usually is insufficient. A person is not confined merely because leaving would be inconvenient, embarrassing, or financially costly.

The claimant must be aware of the confinement when it occurs or suffer harm from it. A sleeping person who is locked in a room but leaves unharmed may lack a claim; a person who is unaware but is injured by the confinement may satisfy the awareness-or-harm requirement. A reasonable route of escape defeats confinement if the claimant knows of it and can use it safely. The defendant’s later release does not erase confinement that already occurred.

The recognition triggers are concrete: a punch, spit, shove, unwanted touching, thrown object, raised weapon, locked door, threatened detention, refusal to let someone leave, unauthorized entry, moving another’s item, damaging or withholding it, or treating it as one’s own. First identify the result, then select the checklist. Do not call every intentional act a battery merely because the defendant acted deliberately.

Distress and Interference with Property: From Outrage to Dominion

Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous, causing severe or extreme emotional distress. The conduct must go beyond insults, petty indignities, annoyances, or ordinary arguments. Repeated harassment, abuse of a position of power, threats directed at a vulnerable person, and deliberate exploitation of known sensitivities are stronger candidates. A defendant’s knowledge of unusual susceptibility can make conduct outrageous that otherwise might not be.

The distress threshold is separate. Fear, embarrassment, anger, or ordinary upset is not enough without substantial severity. Physical symptoms can support severity but are not always required. The claim can exist without a battery, assault, or other completed tort, but ordinary carelessness alone does not satisfy the intentional-or-reckless requirement.

Bystander and third-party claims are limited. A person who is not the direct target generally needs contemporaneous awareness of the event, a close family relationship with the directly injured person, and severe distress of the required kind. The defendant’s knowledge of the relationship and presence matters. A remote observer, a casual acquaintance, or a person who learns of the event later ordinarily cannot recover under the bystander formulation. If the conduct is directed at the claimant personally, the close-family requirement does not control, but the claimant still must prove outrageous conduct and severe distress.

Property torts begin with the type of interference. Trespass to land is an intentional entry onto land possessed by another, or causing a thing or third person to enter. The actor need not know the land belongs to someone else. Remaining after permission ends also can qualify. Actual damage is not required for the liability inquiry.

Trespass to chattels concerns lesser interference with personal property. The defendant may dispossess the possessor, impair the item’s condition or value, or substantially interfere with its use for a period. Conversion is more serious: the defendant exercises dominion or control so substantial that treating the conduct as a forced sale is appropriate. Withholding, destroying, substantially altering, or wrongfully taking an item can support conversion. The same event may begin as trespass to chattels and become conversion if the interference becomes sufficiently serious.

A useful separation is this: land entry asks whether the defendant invaded possession; chattel trespass asks whether possession or use was impaired; conversion asks whether the interference was so serious that the owner’s control was effectively overridden. Intent means intent to enter or interfere, not intent to violate another’s rights.

Permission as a Shield: What Consent Actually Authorizes

Consent is a defense when the claimant actually or apparently permitted the conduct. Express consent may be spoken or written. Implied consent arises from conduct, custom, prior dealings, or circumstances. Holding out an arm for a vaccination, joining a contact sport, or entering an ordinary crowded space can imply permission for customary contact.

Consent is limited by its terms and context. Permission to touch an arm is not permission to strike the face. Permission to enter a store during business hours is not permission to remain in a closed office after being told to leave. The defendant is protected only for conduct within the permission reasonably understood.

Mistake and fraud require attention to what induced the permission. A mistake about an essential nature of the act, or a material misrepresentation that makes the apparent permission unreal, can defeat consent. Fraud about a collateral matter ordinarily does not. The supplied rule controls the distinction when it states one.

Capacity matters. A person who cannot understand the nature and consequences of the conduct may lack effective consent. Age, mental incapacity, intoxication, unconsciousness, and the setting affect the inquiry. A person may have capacity for an ordinary choice while lacking capacity for a complex or dangerous one.

Consent obtained by duress is not voluntary. Consent also may be withdrawn. Withdrawal must be communicated or otherwise reasonably apparent, and conduct continuing after withdrawal is unauthorized. An initial agreement to a prank, game, examination, or sport does not authorize a materially different act.

Privilege Matrix: Justified Force and Its Limits

A privilege can defeat an intentional-tort claim even when the defendant intentionally made contact, entered land, confined someone, or interfered with property. Ask what interest the defendant was protecting, whether the belief in the need for action was reasonable, whether the response was proportionate, and whether the defendant crossed a specific limit.

Self-defense protects the actor from an imminent threat, not from retaliation. The actor may be mistaken if the belief is reasonable, but cannot use more force than reasonably appears necessary. A person who starts the confrontation generally loses the privilege unless the person withdraws and communicates withdrawal, or the other side escalates beyond the original conflict.

Defense of others applies the same immediacy and proportionality ideas to a third person. Defense of property permits prevention or termination of an intrusion, but property alone ordinarily cannot justify deadly force. Necessity may justify an otherwise tortious entry or interference when it is reasonably needed to avoid a more serious danger. Public necessity is ordinarily complete; private necessity can justify the entry while leaving responsibility for actual harm caused.

Recapture of chattels is narrow because self-help must be prompt. The person entitled to possession should act in fresh pursuit, demand return when feasible, and use only reasonable force. Discipline and authority depend on the actor’s relationship and lawful purpose, not merely on a claimed desire to help.

Run a fact pattern in this order:

1. Identify the deliberate act, the protected person or property, and the intended result.
2. Test purpose or substantial certainty, then apply transferred intent if the result reached a different protected interest.
3. Choose the specific tort and check each supplied element, including awareness or severity requirements.
4. Test consent by source, scope, capacity, mistake, fraud, and withdrawal.
5. Test the privilege matching the protected interest, then its proportionality and limits.
6. State the strongest claim and the fact that defeats any competing claim.

The Locked-Room Prank: One Missed Target and One Locked Door

For this question, use the following supplied provision:

Battery is intentional harmful or offensive contact with another person.
Assault requires intent to cause harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of it, and the claimant must be aware of imminent contact.
False imprisonment requires intentional confinement within boundaries fixed by the actor, awareness of confinement or harm from it, and no reasonable means of escape.
Consent is a defense only to conduct within the permission given, and permission may be withdrawn.
An actor who intends battery, assault, or false imprisonment but instead commits one of those torts against another is liable under transferred intent.
IIED requires intentional or reckless extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress. Mere fright, embarrassment, or upset is not severe emotional distress.
Conversion requires intentional dominion over another’s chattel that seriously interferes with it.

Dana wanted to hit Alex with a foam ball as a harmless prank and threw it toward Alex.

Alex ducked, and the ball struck Pat, who had not seen it coming.

Dana then lured Pat into a supply closet and locked the door for ten minutes.

Pat knew the door was locked and had no safe way out. Pat pounded on the door and was upset for an hour but suffered no severe emotional distress.

Pat had agreed with Alex to participate in a harmless scare but had not agreed to be touched or confined.

Dana claims Pat consented to the entire prank.

A homeowner sees a trespasser enter a fenced yard and uses moderate force to remove him after ordering him out. Answer: Defense of property likely applies because the homeowner used reasonable nondeadly force to end a present intrusion rather than punish a completed one.

Recurring errors on this topic include:

• Treating a foreseeable foam-ball hit as intentional without asking whether Dana knew contact was substantially certain.
• Calling a locked room false imprisonment without checking whether Pat knew of confinement or had a safe escape.
• Treating consent to a harmless scare as consent to touching or confinement.
• Calling every angry insult IIED without testing extreme conduct and severe distress.
• Treating any interference with a phone as conversion without asking whether the dominion was seriously substantial.
• Using deadly force to protect property when the threat is only to possession.
• Forgetting that a mistaken entry onto another’s land can still be intentional trespass.
• Treating self-defense as retaliation after the threatening conduct has ended.

In a standalone multiple-choice question, recognize the tort from the concrete act, then use any supplied provision to match each fact to an element or exception. In an integrated question set, the same incident may require separating battery, false imprisonment, IIED, consent, and privilege before selecting the supported conclusions. In a performance task, identify the client’s strongest intentional-tort claims or defenses, explain the missing facts, and tie each conclusion to the supplied authority.

High-Yield Points - ⚡ Biggest Takeaways

Intent requires purpose or substantial certainty, not mere foreseeability. Consent ends when conduct exceeds permission or permission is withdrawn. False imprisonment requires awareness or harm plus confinement without reasonable escape. Privilege requires a protected interest, reasonable force, and compliance with its limits.