Intentional
An intentional tort is one type of tort and it is a result of an intentional act committed by the defendant. Some common intentional torts include false imprisonment, battery, trespass to land, battery, trespass to chattels, intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. Some intentional torts may arise from the use or occupation of land. Depending on which tort is alleged, the intent (specific or general) will need to be proven. Intentional torts are a classification of tort that describes civil wrongs that result from intentional acts on the part of the defendant.
Brief Historical Background
Throughout history, the law of torts has cared very little about the intent of the act. Over the last few centuries or so, it has become more and more apparent of the change in society for the intent of torts. In general, society wishes to deter individuals from attacking each other intentionally. It is now much easier to be awarded punitive damages (ie those damages that are more than just compensatory damages) if it can be proven that the tort committed was intentional. Typically an intentional tort is more difficult to prove as there are subjective elements that are involved, including the content of the defendant’s mind and whether the defendant has expressed any harmful intent, either in writing or verbally. Intentional torts have also changed as a result of technology and the advancement of society. For instance, with people owning more things and people living closer together, more intentional torts take place.
Precedent Setting Cases
There have been some precedent setting cases in the area of intentional torts that have changed the way intentional tort cases are handled. One such case involves the United States Supreme Court and the landmark decision in one area of inmates rights.
In the case Millbrook versus the United States, inmates being held in federal facilities were granted rights to pursue claims for intentional torts. Prior to this fairly recent landmark case, inmates were not able to pursue claims for torts against federal correctional officers for injustices such as assault and battery. This decision offered inmates greater opportunities to seek legal relief for intentional torts like sexual abuse while in federal custody.
Another precedent setting case is Coblyn versus Kennedy’s Inc from 1971 which ruled that shopkeepers can detain a person that he or she reasonably suspects of shoplifting, as long as the detainment is done in a reasonable manner and is for a reasonable period of time. This case involved the intentional tort of false imprisonment, specifically that demonstration of physical power and general restraint of someone which can only be avoided by the person becoming submissive is considered false imprisonment.
Defenses
Under intentional tort law, individuals do have permission to intentionally perform an act that will result in harm to another person. Self defense is one such permission and is a defense to intentional torts. An individual may exert sufficient force in order to defend themselves. One can use deadly force if he or she has reason to believe his or her life is in danger and if there are no means to escape. To defend property, reasonable force may be used but not deadly force. Consent is another defense – as long as the consent is given both freely and voluntarily by a competent and of-age person. Consent can also be used in an emergency situation – it is assumed consent is given if the person is acting in an emergency. Pleading insanity is not a defense of intentional torts.