Intentional torts are far different than negligence. The biggest difference is that with an intentional tort, the offender had the intent to harm the victim, whereas in negligence, there is no such intent. This makes intentional torts much more serious offenses and victims of these crimes can often seek punitive damages in addition to any other compensation they may be entitled to.
When you are injured by another person, you may be wondering what type of legal case you have. There are two primary types of personal injury cases: intentional torts and negligence. In this blog post, we will discuss the key differences between these two types of cases. We will also provide some examples to help illustrate the differences between intentional torts and negligence.
An intentional tort is a civil wrong that is committed on purpose. The most common types of intentional torts are assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In order for an intentional tort to occur, the person who commits the act must do so with the intention of causing harm to another person.
Negligence, on the other hand, is a civil wrong that occurs when a person fails to take reasonable care to avoid harming another person. Negligence can occur even if the person did not intend to cause harm.
For example, if you drive recklessly and cause an accident, you can be held liable for negligence even though you did not mean to cause the accident.
What is the Difference Between Intentional Torts and Negligence?
Intentional torts are actions that are purposely committed to cause harm to another person. In contrast, negligence occurs when someone accidentally causes harm to another person.
Intentional Torts vs Negligence
- The biggest difference between intentional torts and negligence is that intentional torts require proof of intent, while negligence only requires proof of causation. Intent can be difficult to prove because it requires showing what was going on in the defendant’s mind at the time of the incident. Causation, on the other hand, only requires showing that the defendant’s actions were the cause of the plaintiff’s damages.
- Another difference between intentional torts and negligence is that intentional torts often result in more severe damages than negligence. This is because intentional torts are usually committed with the intention of causing harm, while negligence is usually not done with the intention of causing harm.
- The final difference between these two types of claims is that there are different defenses available to each type of claim. For example, contributory negligence and assumption of risk are defenses that can be used in a negligence claim, but cannot be used in an intentional tort claim. Likewise, act of god is a defense that can be used in an intentional tort claim, but not a negligence claim.
As you can see, there are some key differences between intentional torts and negligence. When deciding which type of claim to file, it is important to consider these differences and how they will impact your case. If you are unsure which type of claim to file, you should speak with an experienced personal injury attorney who can help you decide what is best for your case.
Elements of an Intentional Tort
There are four elements that must be present in order for an intentional tort to occur:
- The defendant must have intended to commit the act.
- The act must have actually caused harm to the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff must have suffered some type of damage as a result of the defendant’s act.
- The defendant’s act must have been the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damages.
Intent
The first element that must be present in an intentional tort is that the defendant must have intended to commit the act. This means that the defendant must have specifically meant to cause harm to the plaintiff.
It is not enough for the defendant to simply know that his or her actions could result in harm to the plaintiff. The intent element can be satisfied even if the defendant did not actually succeed in causing harm to the plaintiff.
For example, if a person aims a gun at another person and pulls the trigger, intending to kill that person, but the gun misfires and no one is injured, the intent element would still be satisfied. The fact that the gun misfired and no one was actually harmed does not change the fact that the shooter had the intention of causing harm.
The intent element can also be satisfied if the defendant meant to commit an act that he or she knew was substantially certain to cause harm to the plaintiff.
For example, if a person throws a rock off of a bridge with knowledge that there are people walking below, the intent element would be satisfied even if no is actually hit by the rock. The fact that the defendant knew that his or her were substantially certain to cause harm is enough to satisfy this element.
Causation
The second element that must be present in an intentional tort is causation. This means that the defendant’s actions must have actually caused harm to the plaintiff.
It is not enough for the defendant’s actions to simply be the cause of the plaintiff’s damages. The harm must have been a direct result of the defendant’s actions.
For example, if a person is hit by a car while crossing the street, and it is later determined that the driver of the car was not paying attention and ran a red light, causation would be satisfied. The driver’s actions directly led to the plaintiff being hit by the car.
However, if the plaintiff is hit by a car while crossing the street, and it is later determined that the driver of the car was not paying attention and ran a red light, but that there was also a pothole in the road that caused the plaintiff to trip and fall into oncoming traffic, causation would not be satisfied. The driver’s actions were not the direct cause of the plaintiff being hit by the car.
Causation can also be satisfied if the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff. For example, if a person is hit by a car while crossing the street, and it is later determined that the driver of the car was not paying attention and ran a red light, but that there was also a pothole in the road that caused the plaintiff to trip and fall into oncoming traffic, causation would still be satisfied.
Even though the pothole was also a contributing factor to the plaintiff’s damages, causation would still be present because the driver’s actions were still a substantial factor in causing those damages.
The causation element is often the most difficult element to prove in an intentional tort case. This is because there must be a direct link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s damages. If there are other factors that contribute to the plaintiff’s damages, it can be difficult to prove that causation is present.
Damages
The third element that must be present in an intentional tort is damages. This means that the plaintiff must have suffered some type of harm as a result of the defendant’s actions. The harm can be either physical or emotional. It does not matter which type of harm the plaintiff suffers, as long as he or she suffers some type of harm.
For example, if a person is hit by a car and suffers physical injuries, such as broken bones or internal bleeding, the damages element would be satisfied. If a person is hit by a car and suffers emotional distress, such as anxiety or depression, the damages element would also be satisfied.
The amount of damages that the plaintiff suffers does not matter. Even if the plaintiff only suffers minor injuries, such as cuts and bruises, the damages element would still be satisfied. The fact that the plaintiff has suffered any type of harm is enough to satisfy this element.
If any one of these elements is missing, then an intentional tort has not occurred. For example, if the defendant did not intend to commit the act, then it would be considered accidental and would not be an intentional tort.
Common Intentional Tort Claims
Some of the most common intentional tort claims include:
Assault
Assault is when someone intentionally causes another person to fear for their safety. This can be done through words or actions. It does not necessarily have to result in physical harm.
For example, if someone points a gun at another person and threatens to kill them, that would be considered assault.
Battery
Battery is when someone intentionally physically harms another person without their consent. This can range from a minor push to severe beatings.
For example, if someone punches another person in the face without their consent, that would be considered battery.
False Imprisonment
False imprisonment occurs when someone intentionally confines another person against their will. This can happen with or without physical force.
For example, if someone locks another person in a room and does not let them leave, that would be considered false imprisonment.
#Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when someone intentionally causes another person to suffer from emotional trauma. This can be done through words or actions.
For example, if someone threatens to kill another person’s family, that would be considered intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Trespass
Trespass is when someone intentionally enters onto another person’s property without their consent. This can be done by going onto the property physically or by causing something to enter the property.
For example, if someone throws a rock onto another person’s property, that would be considered trespass.
Defamation
Defamation is when someone makes a false statement about another person that harms their reputation. This can be done through spoken words (slander) or written words (libel).
For example, if someone spreads a rumor that another person is a thief, that would be considered defamation.
Intentional torts are usually more serious than negligence because they are done on purpose. This means that the damages tend to be greater as well.
Defenses to Intentional Tort Claims
There are several defenses that can be raised to intentional tort claims. The most common is self-defense. Other defenses include:
- Consent – if the plaintiff consented to the conduct that caused the injury, there can be no claim for an intentional tort.
- Necessity – if the defendant can show that the conduct was necessary to prevent greater harm, this may be a defense to an intentional tort claim.
- Defense of property – a person may use reasonable force to defend their property from damage or theft.
- Insanity – a person who is insane may not be held liable for their actions if they cannot appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct.
each one in more detail below:
Self-defense
Self-defense is a common defense to intentional tort claims. To successfully assert self-defense, the defendant must show that they reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of harm and that the use of force was necessary to protect themselves from that harm.
Consent
Consent is a defense to intentional torts if the plaintiff consented to the conduct that caused the injury. This consent can be express or implied. For example, if someone agrees to participate in a boxing match, they have consented to being punched and cannot then sue for battery.
Necessity
Necessity may be a defense to an intentional tort claim if the defendant can show that their conduct was necessary to prevent greater harm. For example, if someone breaks into a house to save a child from a fire, they may be able to assert the defense of necessity.
Defense of Property
Defense of property is a defense to intentional tort claims that allows a person to use reasonable force to defend their property from damage or theft. For example, if someone catches a thief in the act of stealing their car, they may be able to use reasonable force to stop the thief and detain them until the police arrive.
Insanity
Insanity is a defense to intentional tort claims that may be available if the person who committed the tort cannot appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct. This defense is typically only available if the person can show that they were suffering from a mental illness at the time of the incident.
Negligence
Negligence, on the other hand, does not require any intent to harm. It is simply a failure to exercise the proper level of care that would be expected in a particular situation. Negligence can occur either through an act or through inaction.
Elements of Negligence
There are three elements that must be present in order for negligence to occur:
The defendant must have owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The defendant must have breached that duty of care. The plaintiff must have suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s breach.
Duty of Care
The first element of negligence is the duty of care. This is a legal obligation that all people have to exercise reasonable care in their actions to avoid harming others. The duty of care varies depending on the particular situation and relationship between the parties.
For example, drivers owe a higher duty of care to other motorists than they do to pedestrians. This is because cars are large and powerful machines that can cause serious injury or death if not operated carefully. Pedestrians, on the other hand, are much less vulnerable and are therefore owed a lower duty of care by drivers.
Breach of Duty
The second element of negligence is the breach of duty. This occurs when the defendant fails to exercise the proper level of care that they owed to the plaintiff. The breach can be either intentional or accidental.
For example, if a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian, they have breached their duty of care to the pedestrian. If the driver was simply careless and did not see the pedestrian, they have still breached their duty of care.
Damages
The third and final element of negligence is damages. The plaintiff must have suffered some type of harm as a result of the defendant’s breach in order for there to be liability. This harm can be physical, emotional, or financial in nature.
For example, if a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian may suffer physical injuries as well as emotional distress. If the driver was simply careless and did not see the pedestrian, the pedestrian may only suffer financial damages, such as medical bills.
If any one of these elements is missing, then negligence has not occurred. For example, if the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff cannot sue for negligence.
It is important to note that proving negligence can be difficult because it requires showing that the defendant did not act as a reasonable person would have in the same situation. It is often up to a jury to decide whether or not the defendant was negligent.
Defenses to Negligence
There are a few different defenses that can be used in negligence cases. These include:
Contributory Negligence
One defense to negligence is contributory negligence. This is when the plaintiff (the person who filed the lawsuit) is partially at fault for their own injuries.
In some states, if the plaintiff is even slightly at fault, they cannot recover any damages from the defendant. Other states use a comparative negligence system, which allows plaintiffs to recover damages even if they are partly at fault, but their recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault.
For example, let’s say that you are walking and texting on your phone and you walk into a busy street without looking both ways first. A car hits you and you suffer serious injuries. The driver of the car sues you for negligence.
If you live in a state with contributory negligence, the court may find that you are completely at fault for your own injuries and you will not be able to recover any damages from the driver.
However, if you live in a state with comparative negligence, the court may find that you are 50% at fault for your own injuries. This means that you would be able to recover 50% of your damages from the driver.
Assumption of Risk
Another defense to negligence is assumption of risk. This is when the plaintiff knew of the risks involved in an activity and still chose to do it.
For example, let’s say that you go skiing and you hit a tree on the slopes. You sue the ski resort for negligence, but the resort argues that you assumed the risk of hitting a tree when you decided to go skiing. The court may agree with the resort and find that you assumed the risk of being injured when you chose to ski.
Assumption of risk can also be used as a defense in cases where there is an inherent risk in an activity, even if the plaintiff did not know about the risk.
For example, let’s say that you are playing football and you suffer a concussion. You sue the football league for negligence, but the league argues that concussions are an inherent risk of playing football. The court may agree with the league and find that you assumed the risk of being injured when you chose to play football.
Comparative Negligence
As mentioned above, comparative negligence is a defense to negligence that allows plaintiffs to recover damages even if they are partly at fault, but their recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault.
For example, let’s say that you are walking and texting on your phone and you walk into a busy street without looking both ways first. A car hits you and you suffer serious injuries. The driver of the car sues you for negligence. If you live in a state with comparative negligence, the court may find that you are 50% at fault for your own injuries. This means that you would be able to recover 50% of your damages from the driver.
Comparative negligence can also be used as a defense in cases where there is more than one defendant. For example, let’s say that you are in a car accident and you suffer injuries. You sue the other driver and the car manufacturer for negligence. The court may find that the other driver is 80% at fault and the car manufacturer is 20% at fault. This means that you would be able to recover 80% of your damages from the other driver and 20% of your damages from the car manufacturer.
Statutory Immunity
Statutory immunity is a defense to negligence that is based on state laws. For example, some states have laws that give immunity to school districts from lawsuits for negligence. This means that if you are injured at school, you may not be able to sue the school district for negligence.
Statutory immunity can also apply to other types of defendants, such as government agencies and charities. For example, let’s say that you are walking on a trail and you slip and fall on a loose rock. You sue the city for negligence, but the city argues that it has statutory immunity from lawsuits for accidents on trails. The court may agree with the city and find that you cannot recover any damages from the city.
Superseding Cause
A superseding cause is an event that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries.
For example, let’s say that you are in a car accident and you suffer injuries. You sue the other driver for negligence, but the other driver argues that your injuries were caused by a medical condition that was not related to the accident.
The court may agree with the other driver and find that your medical condition was a superseding cause of your injuries. This would mean that you could not recover any damages from the other driver.
Superseding causes can also be used as a defense in cases where there is more than one defendant. For example, let’s say that you are in a car accident and you suffer injuries. You sue the other driver and the car manufacturer for negligence. The other driver argues that your injuries were caused by a defect in the car, which was not related to the accident.
The court may agree with the other driver and find that the defect in the car was a superseding cause of your injuries. This would mean that you could not recover any damages from the other driver, but you could still recover damages from the car manufacturer.
Which defense will be used in a particular case will depend on the facts of that case. An experienced personal injury attorney can help you understand which defenses may apply to your case and how best to proceed.
Conclusion
Intentional torts are far different than negligence. The biggest difference is that with an intentional tort, the offender had the intent to harm the victim, whereas in negligence, there is no such intent. This makes intentional torts much more serious offenses and victims of these crimes can often seek punitive damages in addition to any other compensation they may be entitled to.
Thanks for reading! I hope this cleared up any confusion regarding the differences between intentional torts and negligence. If you have any additional questions, feel free to leave them in the comments below.