How is an intentional tort defined?

How is an intentional tort defined?

• A. A wrongful act committed without knowledge
• B. A wrongful act committed unknowingly
• C. A wrongful act committed knowingly with intent
• D. A wrongful act that results in negligence

Answer: (C)

An intentional tort is defined as a wrongful act that is committed knowingly with the intent to cause harm or that is substantially certain to result in harm. This means the individual committing the act consciously chooses to engage in conduct that they know could result in injury or damage to another person or their property. In cases of intentional torts, intent is a critical component, distinguishing them from negligence or unintentional wrongdoing, where the harm arises from a failure to act with reasonable care rather than from a deliberate decision to cause harm. Examples of intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, and defamation, where the wrongdoer has the mindset to carry out the act with awareness of its potential consequences. The other options focus on unintentional actions or lack of intent, which do not align with the core definition of an intentional tort, as they imply a state of ignorance or negligence rather than a deliberate or knowing decision to harm. Therefore, the correct definition aligns clearly with the essence of intentionality in tort law.

An intentional tort is defined as a wrongful act that is committed knowingly with the intent to cause harm or that is substantially certain to result in harm. This means the individual committing the act consciously chooses to engage in conduct that they know could result in injury or damage to another person or their property.

In cases of intentional torts, intent is a critical component, distinguishing them from negligence or unintentional wrongdoing, where the harm arises from a failure to act with reasonable care rather than from a deliberate decision to cause harm. Examples of intentional torts include assault, battery, false imprisonment, and defamation, where the wrongdoer has the mindset to carry out the act with awareness of its potential consequences.

The other options focus on unintentional actions or lack of intent, which do not align with the core definition of an intentional tort, as they imply a state of ignorance or negligence rather than a deliberate or knowing decision to harm. Therefore, the correct definition aligns clearly with the essence of intentionality in tort law.