INTENTIONAL TORTS:

Intentional torts require an intended act by a wrongdoer against another. Some intentional torts can also be criminal. For example, if a person batters someone and causes them harm, this is also a criminal act and the person can be arrested and sued at the same time.

Common intentional torts include:

• Assault
• Battery
• Trespass to Land
• Conversion
• Defamation
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
• False Imprisonment

Assault:

Civil assault is an intentional act by the defendant that causes reasonable apprehension or fear of harmful or offensive contact of the plaintiff. Actual contact is not required. This is a bit different than its counterpart in criminal law where contact is usually required. Assault is an intentional tort to a person.

Battery:

Battery is an intentional act by the defendant that causes harmful or offensive contact of the plaintiff. The tort of battery often accompanies the tort of assault where it is referred to as assault and battery. Battery is most similar to criminal assault. Battery is an intentional tort to a person.

Trespass to Land:

Trespass to land requires an intentional act by the defendant which causes the defendant to enter or intrude on the plaintiff’s land. Trespass to land is most similar to criminal trespass. It is an intentional tort to property.

Conversion:

Conversion is an intentional act by the defendant that causes either the substantial invasion thereof or the outright possession by the defendant of the plaintiff’s personal property without the plaintiff’s consent. Conversion is an intentional tort to property. It is most similar to the criminal statutes of larceny.

Defamation:

Defamation is the intentional communication (sometimes referred to as publication) by the defendant to a third person of a false statement about the plaintiff that causes harm to the reputation of the plaintiff resulting in damages. The communication can be in writing, which is called libel, or verbally, which is called slander. The communication or publication must be false. It must also cause damage to plaintiff by either lowering the plaintiff’s reputation or exposing the plaintiff to some form of hate, contempt, or ridicule. Defamation is an intentional tort to a person. There is no criminal statute that directly correlates to this tort.

There are First Amendment constitutional restrictions to the tort of defamation. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, (1964) established the standard that for a public official to recover damages for defamation, there must be “actual malice” on the part of the defendant publishing the defamatory statement. The Court defined actual malice as either the actual knowledge that the statement the defendant is publishing is false or that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

In the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the plaintiff, Mr. Sullivan, was the Commissioner of Public Safety which included his duty to supervise the police in Montgomery Alabama. He sued the New York Times for a full page advertisement they published titled “Heed Their Rising Voices” that was paid for by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and Struggle for Freedom in the South. The advertisement contained several inaccurate accusations against the police that were defamatory. While the plaintiff won a judgment of $500,000 in an Alabama state court, the Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision, held that news publications could not be sued for libel by public officials unless the plaintiff was able to establish actual malice in the false reporting of a news story. The Court found that the law applied by the Alabama courts was constitutionally deficient in its failure to protect the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press. The Court therefore held that the evidence presented in the case was insufficient to support a judgment for Sullivan and ruled that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements about public officials, even those found to be false, unless the statements are made with actual malice.

Case law has also established the standard of actual malice also applies to public figures. Public figures have been defined as people that have achieved great publicity, fame, or notoriety.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is an intentional act by words or actions of extreme or outrageous conduct by the defendant that causes severe emotional distress of the plaintiff. The extreme and outrageous conduct must exceed all bounds of decent behavior. The emotional distress of the plaintiff must also be severe and far outside that which is ordinary. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is an intentional tort to a person.

The U.S. Supreme court case of Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) illustrates how difficult it is to prove a case intentional infliction of emotional distress. The facts of the case are that on March 3, 2006, Matthew A. Snyder was killed while serving as a Marine in Iraq. On March 10, the Westboro Baptist Church picketed Matthew Snyder’s funeral. They did so while on public property, but in view of those attending the funeral service. This was not new to the Westboro Baptist Church as they had picketed a large number of military funerals throughout the country in protest of what they considered an increase in tolerance of homosexuality in the United States. The picketers displayed posters such as “America is doomed”, “You’re going to hell”, “and God hates you “,” Fag troops”, and “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

The Snyder family sued the Westboro Baptist Church for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found in their favor and awarded the Snyder family $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $6 million in punitive damages for invasion of privacy, and an additional $2 million for causing emotional distress for a total of $10.9 million. The case was reversed on appeal by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church finding the trial court had erred in its instructions to the jury and that the actions by the church was protected speech. The Snyder family appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determining that the Westboro Baptist Church’s speech was related to a public issue and therefore was protected speech that could not be prevented as it was on public property. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is an intentional tort to a person. There is no criminal statute that directly correlates to this intentional tort.

False Imprisonment:

False imprisonment is an intentional act by the defendant that causes the confinement of the plaintiff without the plaintiff’s consent. The plaintiff must have no known reasonable means of escape. The confinement can be in the form of fixed barriers like a room or just a corner. False imprisonment is an intentional tort to a person. It often involves store security who detains people suspected with shoplifting. It is most similar to criminal statutes of false imprisonment.