## **Learning Outcomes**

This article explains intentional torts that cause harm to the person, including:

- Identifying and applying the elements of battery, assault, and false imprisonment on bar-style multiple‑choice and essay questions, with particular emphasis on how examiners test each element and common factual traps.
- Distinguishing specific, general, and transferred intent in intentional torts, and recognizing fact patterns where an apparently “careless” act actually satisfies the intent requirement because the result was substantially certain to occur.
- Analyzing causation and the full range of damages in personal harms cases, including nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages, and determining what proof is necessary for each category in an MBE setting.
- Applying defenses such as consent, self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, shopkeeper’s privilege, and privilege of arrest, and evaluating when a defense is complete versus when it only mitigates liability.
- Differentiating intentional torts from negligence, IIED, and related doctrines on MBE-style facts, selecting the proper cause of action, and spotting when both intentional and negligent theories may be available.
- Using structured issue-spotting steps and checklist-style reasoning to move efficiently through fact patterns involving contact, apprehension, or confinement, ensuring you reach the correct answer even under strict time pressure.

## **MBE Syllabus**

For the MBE, you are required to understand intentional torts causing harm to the person, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Elements of battery, assault, and false imprisonment
- Specific intent, general intent, and transferred intent
- Causation and damages (including nominal and punitive damages)
- Defenses: consent, self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and privilege of arrest
- Distinctions between intentional torts, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress

## **Test Your Knowledge**

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Which of the following is NOT required to establish battery?  
   a) Harmful or offensive contact  
   b) Intent to cause contact  
   c) Actual physical injury  
   d) Causation

2. A defendant swings at Person A, intending to hit A, but misses and hits Person B. Which doctrine applies?  
   a) General intent  
   b) Transferred intent  
   c) Negligence  
   d) Strict liability

3. Which of the following is a complete defense to an intentional tort claim for battery?  
   a) Mistake of fact  
   b) Consent within its scope  
   c) Lack of foreseeability  
   d) Contributory negligence

4. A store detective reasonably believes a shopper is stealing and briefly detains the shopper in a back office to ask questions, then promptly releases the shopper when the suspicion is resolved. On these facts, the store’s best defense to a false imprisonment claim is:  
   a) Self-defense  
   b) Necessity  
   c) Shopkeeper’s privilege  
   d) Lack of damages

## **Introduction**

Intentional torts involving harms to the person are a core MBE topic. These torts share a common structure:

- A **volitional act** by the defendant
- The **required intent** (specific, general, or transferred)
- **Causation** linking the act to the result
- The legally relevant consequence (contact, apprehension, or confinement)

Unlike negligence, intentional torts do not turn on “reasonable care.” They focus on whether the defendant meant to cause the contact, apprehension, or confinement (or knew it would occur with substantial certainty), even if the defendant did not intend the precise injury that resulted.

The three primary torts in this area are battery, assault, and false imprisonment.

> **Key Term: Battery**  
> The intentional infliction of harmful or offensive contact with another's person, without consent.
>
> **Key Term: Assault**  
> The intentional act causing another to reasonably apprehend imminent harmful or offensive contact.
>
> **Key Term: False Imprisonment**  
> The intentional confinement of a person within fixed boundaries, without legal authority or consent.

### Intent in Intentional Torts

All three torts require intent, but not “intent to injure.”

> **Key Term: Intent**  
> The purpose to cause a result or knowledge with substantial certainty that the result will occur.
>
> **Key Term: Specific Intent**  
> The actor's purpose to bring about the particular consequences that constitute the tort.
>
> **Key Term: General Intent**  
> The actor's knowledge with substantial certainty that the consequences of their act will occur, even if the consequences are not desired.

Key points:

- A child or mentally ill defendant can have intent if they act with purpose or substantial certainty.
- Mistake (e.g., “I thought it was my umbrella”) does **not** negate intent if the act and contact were intentional.
- Malice is not required; a “practical joke” can still be a battery or assault.

#### Transferred Intent

Transferred intent lets the plaintiff recover even when the defendant’s aim is off—either as to the victim or the tort.

> **Key Term: Transferred Intent**  
> The doctrine allowing intent to commit one tort against one person to satisfy the intent requirement for a different tort or victim.

Classic MBE rule: transferred intent applies between **battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels.**

- D intends an assault on A but accidentally strikes B → D is liable to B for **battery**.
- D intends to confine A but mistakenly confines B → D is liable to B for **false imprisonment**.

#### Exam Warning

Transferred intent does **not** apply to intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). If the fact pattern is really about severe emotional distress, analyze IIED separately.

### Battery

Battery protects bodily integrity and personal dignity.

To prove battery, the plaintiff must show:

- Volitional act by the defendant
- Intent to cause harmful or offensive contact (specific or general intent)
- Harmful or offensive contact results
- Causation (defendant’s act was a substantial factor in bringing about the contact)

> **Key Term: Harmful or Offensive Contact**  
> Contact that causes physical injury or would offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.

Key details for the MBE:

- **No actual physical injury is required.** Offensive contact (e.g., unwanted touching of clothing, hair, or items closely connected to the body) is enough.
- Contact can be **direct** (punching) or **indirect** (poisoning food, setting a trap, pulling a chair away).
- The plaintiff need not be aware of the contact at the time (e.g., touching while asleep).
- Contact with objects “intimately associated” with the body counts (plate in hand, clothing, cane).

> **Key Term: Nominal Damages**  
> A small monetary award recognizing a legal wrong where no actual compensatory loss is proven.

For battery, the plaintiff can recover:

- Nominal damages even without actual harm
- Compensatory damages for physical and emotional harms
- Punitive damages where defendant’s conduct is outrageous or malicious (e.g., violent assault)

### **Worked Example 1.1**

A throws a rock at B, intending to scare B, but the rock hits B and causes a bruise. Is A liable for battery?

> **Answer:**  
> Yes. A intended to cause contact by throwing the rock, and harmful contact occurred. Battery does not require intent to injure, only intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. A’s “joke” motive is irrelevant.

### Assault

Assault protects freedom from the **apprehension** of imminent contact.

> **Key Term: Apprehension**  
> The plaintiff's reasonable expectation that a harmful or offensive contact is about to occur.
>
> **Key Term: Imminent**  
> Near-in-time contact that is about to occur without significant delay, not a threat of future harm.

Elements:

- Volitional act by the defendant
- Intent to cause apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact, or intent to cause the contact itself (transferred intent can apply)
- Plaintiff’s **reasonable apprehension** of such contact
- Causation

Important points for the exam:

- **Apprehension, not fear.** The plaintiff need only anticipate contact; being bravely unafraid does not defeat assault.
- The plaintiff must be **aware** of the threat at the time. Later realization does not create assault.
- Words **alone** are generally insufficient. There must be some overt act (e.g., stepping toward plaintiff, raising a fist).
- Words can **negate** an apparent threat (“If you weren’t my best friend, I’d hit you right now”).
- Threat must be of **imminent** contact (“I’ll hit you right now”), not future harm (“I’ll get you next week”).
- Defendant must have the **apparent present ability** to carry out the threat. Pointing an unloaded gun can still be assault if the plaintiff reasonably believes it is loaded.

### **Worked Example 1.2**

E swings a stick at F, intending to hit F, but misses. F sees the swing and fears being struck. Is E liable for assault?

> **Answer:**  
> Yes. E’s act created F’s reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact. The fact that contact did not occur eliminates battery but does not defeat assault.
>
> **Exam Application**  
> If a defendant waves a real knife at the plaintiff but the plaintiff reasonably believes it is a toy and laughs it off, there is no assault: no apprehension at the time. Do not “back-fill” apprehension based on later realization.

### False Imprisonment

False imprisonment protects freedom of movement.

> **Key Term: Confinement**  
> Restricting a person's freedom of movement within fixed boundaries, with no reasonable means of escape.

Elements:

- Act or omission by the defendant that confines the plaintiff within fixed boundaries
- Intent to confine (specific or general intent)
- Plaintiff is aware of the confinement **or** suffers actual harm
- Causation

Key nuances:

- Confinement can be created by:
  - Physical barriers (locked room)
  - Physical force (holding plaintiff’s arm)
  - Immediate threats of force (threatening to shoot if plaintiff leaves)
  - Asserted legal authority (pretending to be an officer and announcing an “arrest”)
  - Failure to act when there is a duty to release (e.g., not unlocking an exit when required)
- **Moral pressure** or threats of future harm are not enough (“If you leave, I’ll ruin your career”).
- The area must be **bounded**; blocking one exit when another reasonable exit is available and known to plaintiff is not confinement.
- The plaintiff need not know all exits exist; if escape would cause risk of serious harm (e.g., jumping from a high window), it is not “reasonable.”

Plaintiff must be either:

- Conscious of the confinement at the time, or
- Harmed by it (e.g., child locked in a room and suffers injury)

### Shopkeeper’s Privilege and Privilege of Arrest

False imprisonment often arises in detention or arrest fact patterns.

> **Key Term: Shopkeeper's Privilege**  
> A merchant's limited privilege to detain a suspected shoplifter for a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner.

A merchant is privileged to detain a suspected thief if:

- There is **reasonable suspicion** of shoplifting
- The detention is in a **reasonable manner** (no excessive force or humiliation)
- The detention lasts only a **reasonable time** to investigate and call police

If these conditions are met, the detention is a defense to false imprisonment.

Police and private citizens also have arrest privileges (examined more fully in Criminal Law):

- A private citizen may arrest for a felony actually committed and with reasonable grounds to suspect the arrestee.
- A police officer may arrest on reasonable belief a felony has been committed by the arrestee.

An arrest made within these rules defeats a false imprisonment claim.

### **Worked Example 1.3**

C locks D in a room for 10 minutes as a prank. D is aware of the confinement but suffers no physical harm. Can D recover for false imprisonment?

> **Answer:**  
> Yes. C intentionally confined D within fixed boundaries without consent. Awareness of confinement is enough; physical injury is not required. D may recover at least nominal damages.

### Causation and Damages

Causation in intentional torts is straightforward: the defendant’s act or omission must be a **substantial factor** in bringing about the contact, apprehension, or confinement.

> **Key Term: Nominal Damages**  
> A small monetary award recognizing a legal wrong where no actual compensatory loss is proven.

Damages:

- **Battery, assault, and false imprisonment do not require proof of actual loss.** Nominal damages are available upon proof of the tort.
- Compensatory damages are available for physical and emotional harms.
- Punitive damages may be awarded where the defendant’s conduct is willful, wanton, or malicious.

### Defenses to Intentional Torts

Defenses (privileges) are heavily tested because they often flip the result on subtle facts.

> **Key Term: Consent**  
> Voluntary agreement to the defendant's conduct, negating liability for an intentional tort.

#### Consent

Consent can be:

- **Express** (written or oral agreement, signed waiver)
- **Implied by fact** (from conduct, custom, or surrounding circumstances)
- **Implied by law** (emergency medical treatment where patient is unconscious and prompt care is necessary to preserve life or health)

Limits:

- Consent is evaluated from the standpoint of a **reasonable person** in the defendant’s position.
- Consent obtained by fraud, duress, or from someone without capacity (young child, severely intoxicated person) is invalid.
- **Scope matters.** Exceeding the scope of consent revives liability.

Sports and consent:

- Players are deemed to consent to **ordinary** contacts typical of the game (tackling in football).
- Conduct that is well beyond the rules or common understanding of the game (e.g., deliberately elbowing an unhelmeted player in the head to gain the ball) falls outside the scope and can be a battery.

Medical consent:

- Consent to surgery by one doctor does not automatically authorize a different doctor to operate, absent emergency or broader consent.

#### Self-Defense and Defense of Others

A person may use **reasonable force** to defend against an imminent battery.

- The actor must **reasonably believe** force is necessary to prevent imminent harmful or offensive contact.
- The force used must be **proportionate** to the threatened harm.

Deadly force:

- Permitted only if the actor reasonably believes she faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
- Most jurisdictions do **not** require retreat before using deadly force; a minority requires retreat if safely possible, except in one’s home.

Defense of others:

- A person may use the same degree of force in defense of another that would be justified in self-defense, based on a reasonable belief that the other person is entitled to self-defense.

Bystanders:

- If the actor’s self-defense is proper and non-negligent, accidental injuries to bystanders do not create additional liability.

#### Defense of Property

Reasonable, non-deadly force may be used to prevent or terminate tortious interference with property. Deadly force and deadly mechanical devices (spring guns) may not be used solely to protect property.

#### Privilege of Arrest

Privileges of arrest (for police and, more narrowly, for private citizens) can serve as defenses to battery and false imprisonment, provided the arrest falls within the applicable rules (reasonable belief, correct type of offense, etc.).

### Distinguishing Intentional Torts from Negligence and IIED

On the MBE, many questions turn on choosing the right tort theory:

- **Intentional tort vs negligence**: Intent exists if defendant acted with purpose or substantial certainty, even if the act was “careless” by everyday standards.
- **Assault vs IIED**: Assault requires contemporaneous apprehension of imminent contact; IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct and **severe** emotional distress, but no apprehension of contact.

#### Revision Tip

Always locate the required intent first. If the defendant meant to cause contact, apprehension, or confinement (or knew it was substantially certain), analyze intentional torts before negligence, even if the injury was accidental or greater than expected.

## **Key Point Checklist**

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Battery requires intentional harmful or offensive contact; actual injury is not required.
- Assault requires a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; words alone are usually insufficient.
- False imprisonment requires intentional confinement within fixed boundaries; awareness or harm is required.
- Intent can be specific or general; transferred intent applies among the classic five intentional torts.
- Causation is a substantial factor test; nominal damages are available even without actual loss.
- Defenses include consent (and its limits), self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, shopkeeper’s privilege, and privilege of arrest.
- Intentional torts differ from negligence (no requirement of breach of duty) and from IIED (different elements and no transferred intent).

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- Battery
- Assault
- False Imprisonment
- Intent
- Specific Intent
- General Intent
- Transferred Intent
- Harmful or Offensive Contact
- Apprehension
- Imminent
- Confinement
- Shopkeeper's Privilege
- Nominal Damages
- Consent

Intentional torts - Harms to the person