An intentional tort is a category of civil wrongs that result from some intentional act of the wrongdoer. Separated into two categories, intentional torts are classified as against persons or as against property. Intentional torts against persons include battery, assault, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Intentional torts against property include trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion. Common for intentional torts in both categories is such that the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted knowingly to cause harm as a personal injury lawyer can share.
While often confused for their similarities, assault and battery differ based on contact. The intentional tort battery requires that the defendant acted with an intent to cause harm or offensive contact, the contact occurs directly or indirectly, and the plaintiff did not consent to the contact. Assault, on the other hand, requires the ability to make contact. Specifically, to make an assault claim, a plaintiff should show that the defendant threatened imminent harmful or offensive contact on the victim that caused the plaintiff to reasonably fear imminent harm.
False imprisonment is a cause of action that occurs after a defendant has restricted a plaintiff’s freedom of bodily movement. To make a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant: (1) intentionally or unlawfully confined the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was aware of the confinement; (3) the plaintiff had no reasonable means of escape; and (4) the confinement caused harm. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a claim resulting from a defendant’s action that causes severe enough distress in a person such that a reasonably prudent person would also suffer such emotional distress. To make an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant: (1) acted in an extreme or outrageous fashion; (2) that intentionally or recklessly causes; (3) the plaintiff severe emotional distress.
To make a claim for trespass to land, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally entered onto their land without the consent or grant to be there, and that this trespass caused harm. The action trespass to chattel requires a similar showing by the plaintiff. Here, the plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in unlawful intentional interference with the personal property of another without their consent. An interference is defined as the dispossession or deprivation of use of personal property for a substantial time or impairing the quality, condition, or value of that personal property.
A conversion is a logical advance from a trespass to chattel. The difference between a conversion and a trespass to chattel is the damage to the property. With a trespass to chattel, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally exercised sufficient control over the chattel belonging to plaintiff to such an extent that it becomes fair to require the defendant to pay for the chattel’s full value. To determine whether a trespass to chattel becomes a conversion, the court must consider the following: extent and duration of the control; intent of the plaintiff to assert their right to the chattel; the plaintiff’s good faith; extent and duration of the interference; harm done to the chattel; and the resulting inconvenience and expense resulting from the trespass.
For all intentional torts, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted intentionally. While this often implicitly requires circumstantial evidence, the burden is the same for the plaintiff to show that the defendant acted purposefully or with knowledge of their act. If you have been harmed intentionally by someone else, contact a lawyer near you immediately for help.
Thanks to Eglet Adams Eglet Ham Henriod for its insight on intentional torts.