Also known as: willful torts · wilful tort · wilful torts · intentional tort
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A civil wrong committed when the actor desires to cause the resulting harm or knows with substantial certainty that the harm will occur. The intent element is satisfied by either purpose or knowledge of substantial certainty even if the actor does not desire the precise injury that follows. Liability attaches without regard to whether actual damage occurs.
Wesley Wells left a side door unlocked and unmonitored at his warehouse after receiving repeated warnings that banned individuals had attempted entry. Warren Woods, a previously banned patron, entered undetected, became intoxicated, and intentionally struck another guest with a metal pipe. The court treats Warren's assault as an intentional tort whose foreseeability prevents it from operating as a superseding cause of the guest's injuries.
Whitney White, domiciled in Florida, posted videos accusing a Massachusetts college of grade inflation and tagged the college's hometown while urging local students to withdraw. The college suffered reputational harm centered in Massachusetts. The court exercises personal jurisdiction over Whitney because she committed an intentional tort expressly aimed at Massachusetts with knowledge that the harm would be felt there.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Winter Wolfe, a supervisor at Windham Technologies, repeatedly made explicit sexual advances toward a subordinate and conditioned job benefits on compliance. The subordinate suffered emotional distress and lost promotions. The court holds Windham Technologies vicariously liable for Winter's willful tort under agency principles governing intentional misconduct by supervisors.
William Williams, a school official, struck a student multiple times with a paddle despite knowing the force exceeded school policy. The student suffered lasting bruises and emotional harm. The court analyzes whether the official's willful tort implicates due-process protections against excessive corporal punishment.
Wren Wallace sprayed pesticide on his fields knowing with substantial certainty that wind would carry it onto neighboring property owned by Willowbrook Capital. The chemical damaged Willowbrook's crops. The court treats the drift as a willful tort supporting trespass liability rather than mere negligence.
Warren Woods published a column accusing a Nevada resident of criminal conduct and purchased geo-targeted ads ensuring Nevada users would see it. The plaintiff suffered reputational harm in Nevada. The court applies the effects test to determine whether the willful tort supports personal jurisdiction in Nevada despite the defendant's lack of physical presence there.
A willful tort requires that the actor either desires the harmful contact or knows with substantial certainty that it will result. Negligence requires only that the actor fail to exercise reasonable care. The distinction matters for available defenses, punitive damages, and jurisdictional analysis.
A defendant who commits a willful tort expressly aimed at the forum state and knows the harm will be suffered there may be subject to specific jurisdiction even without physical presence. Mere foreseeability of harm without express aiming is insufficient.
An employer may face vicarious liability when a supervisor commits an intentional tort within the scope of employment or when the employer ratifies the conduct. The analysis turns on agency principles rather than the employer's own intent.
A third party's intentional tort is a superseding cause unless the original actor realized or should have realized the likelihood that the situation created would invite such conduct. Foreseeability of the third-party act keeps the original negligence in the causal chain.
…of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla , 357 U. S. 235, 253 (1958). There may be exceptions, say, for instance, in cases involving an intentional tort. But the general rule is applicable in this products-liability case, and the so-called “stream-of-commerce” doctrine cannot displace it. I This case arises from a products-liability…