Intent

Question 1

intent

Answer 1

The defendant has a desire or a substantial certainty that certain consequences will result from his actions.

Question 2

desired intent

Answer 2

The defendant consciously seeks the consequences of his acts to occur. Note that this is different from motive (the reasons behind the action).

Question 3

substantial certainty

Answer 3

The defendant is consciously aware that certain consequences will follow from his actions.
ex. Garratt v. Dailey : D is a 5-year-old boy who moves a chair in which P was about to sit.

Question 4

relevant consequences

Answer 4

Substantial certainty only encompasses results that the defendant can reasonably foresee. No liability is found for bizarre results.

Question 5

between parties

Answer 5

If the defendant intends to commit a tort against one victim, but unintentionally harms another, he is still liable for the tort.
ex. Talmage v. Smith : D finds X on his shed, but does not see P, also on shed. D throws a stick at X, but accidentally hits P. D is liable for battery if he has used unreasonable force.
8

Question 6

between torts

Answer 6

If the defendant attempts one tort, but unintentionally causes another, he is still liable for the tort. Intent can transfer between assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land and trespass to chattels.

Question 7

mistake

Answer 7

If the defendant attempts to do an act which constitutes a tort, mistake is not accepted as a defense.
ex. Ranson v. Kitner : D, a hunter, shoots P’s dog, reasonably believing it to be a wolf. D is liable, even if he acted in good faith.

Question 8

insanity

Answer 8

A defendant is liable even when insane, provided that it is shown that he is capable of desiring or being substantially certain of the consequences.
ex. McGuire v. Almy : D, an insane person, strikes P, her nurse, while in a fit of rage. D is held liable because the court found her capable of forming intent to act.