Intent, battery, assault, and transferred intent

Black-letter propositions

1. 01

   Intent is desire for the consequence or knowledge it is substantially certain; motive and hostility are unnecessary.

2. 02

   Battery is intentional harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person, including closely connected objects.

3. 03

   Assault is intentional creation of reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

4. 04

   Transferred intent traditionally moves among battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels.

5. 05

   A child or person with mental incapacity can form tort intent even if unable to appreciate wrongfulness.

Use this attack sequence under time

Common wrong turns

• Words alone can negate or create imminence depending on context.
• Fear is not required; apprehension means anticipation.
• Unexpected sensitivity does not control offensiveness unless known.

Worked example

D throws a stone to scare A, misses, and hits B.

Practice this topic

Battery, assault and intent as Cornell states them

Cornell defines battery as the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent, both a tort and a crime. Intent may be shown by purpose to cause contact or knowledge with substantial certainty that contact would result. Contact may reach items closely connected to the body, such as clothing or objects held in hand. A harmful contact causes physical impairment or injury, and an offensive contact would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity under an objective standard.

Cornell describes assault as an intentional act that puts another in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, and motive is immaterial. The actor need not intend the contact to be harmful, only to have intended the contact.

Transferred intent

Cornell says transferred intent applies when a defendant intends to harm one victim but unintentionally harms a second victim instead, so the intent transfers to the actual victim and satisfies the mental element. Its summary states the doctrine is used only for completed crimes and not attempted crimes.

On a torts exam, identify the intended tort and the tort actually committed, then ask whether your course transfers intent between them. Cornell's page describes the doctrine in the criminal setting, so state the rule your course gives for torts.

Cornell also says that the tortfeasor need not have intended the contact to be harmful or offensive, only to have intended the actual contact, and that in assault a joke or intent merely to scare still counts as intent. The exam skill is to separate the intended act from its consequences. Ask what the defendant meant to do, then whether the contact that resulted was harmful or offensive under the objective standard.

Frequently asked questions