An
intentional tort is a category of
torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the
tortfeasor. The term
negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while
strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable for injuries no matter what precautions were taken.
As a matter of public policy, damages available for intentional torts tend to be broader and more generous than for negligent torts. In order to preserve individual well-being and overall social welfare, society generally wishes to deter its members from intentionally attacking each other. For example, in the United States, it is easier to get punitive damages (damages above and beyond compensatory damages) if one can prove that the tort was intentional. But it is harder to prove intentional torts because as with many felony crimes, one must prove subjective elements involving the content of the defendant's mind, and defendants do not always express their harmful intent out loud or in writing.
The key difference between intentional torts and negligent torts is that the plaintiff must prove the additional element that the defendant acted with the specific intent or mental state of intentionally performing the act which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Under doctrines such as transferred intent, the plaintiff need not always prove that the defendant acted with the intent to bring about the specific injury that actually occurred.
Not every intentional action qualifies as an intentional tort. Suppose an investor holding more than half of a corporation's stock votes on changes the other stockholders find detrimental. If the other stockholders suffer damages as a result, this is not a tort, as the powerful investor had a right to vote whichever way he liked. Thus, the other stockholders cannot sue the aforementioned investor for damages. If, on the other hand, John Doe physically attacks a passerby in the street, and as a result the passerby incurs medical bills, John is liable for these costs, as he is guilty of the tort of battery.
