Intentional Torts
Intentional Torts
Torts protecting bodily, dignitary, land, and personal-property interests.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Scope and honesty note
Jurisdiction: United States common-law overview with selected Texas statutory applications; as of 2026-08-28; jurisdictions and causes of action vary; not legal advice. Synthetic facts are classroom inputs, not findings. This lesson renders structure, refuses unsupported interpretation, cites, abstains, and hands off.
See the essential structure first
Start with this deliberately incomplete structure, then use the pinned authorities, worked application, exceptions, and handoff below. This deliberately incomplete preview has 4 nodes; exceptions and legal consequences remain in the sourced prose below.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Begin with the governing doctrine
Intentional torts require intent as defined by the governing doctrine, often purpose or substantial certainty, plus invasion of a specified protected interest. Battery concerns harmful or offensive contact; assault concerns apprehension of imminent contact; false imprisonment concerns bounded confinement; intentional infliction of emotional distress concerns extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe distress. Trespass protects possessory interests in land, while trespass to chattels and conversion address different degrees of interference with personal property.
Pin false-imprisonment elements
The opinion gives a bounded four-element formulation covering intent to confine, awareness, nonconsent, and absence of privilege. Caption: Parvi v. City of Kingston; court: New York Court of Appeals; decision date: 1977-04-05. Verbatim opinion excerpt: “Only recently, we had occasion to set out the four elements of that tort in Broughton v State of New York (37 NY2d 451, 456), where we said that "the plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged”.” Source: 41 N.Y. 553; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/ny-2d/volume_41/0553_01/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin intentional emotional-distress liability
The excerpt applies intentional coercion producing extreme fright and expressly addresses the absence of right or privilege. Caption: State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff; court: Supreme Court of California; decision date: 1952-01-29. Verbatim opinion excerpt: “In the present case plaintiff caused defendant to suffer extreme fright. By intentionally producing such fright it endeavored to compel him either to give up the Acme account or pay for it, and it had no right or privilege to adopt such coercive methods in competing for business. In these circumstances liability is clear.” Source: 38 Cal. 2d 330; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/cal-2d/volume_38/0330_01/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin the synthetic fact pattern
A synthetic packet separately reports contact after withdrawn consent, an exit blocked during questioning, repeated threats designed to frighten, an unpermitted land entry, and control over another's device.
Work the application
Each event enters its own prima facie trace. The confinement record tests intent, actual boundaries, awareness or harm, consent, and privilege. The distress record tests conduct, intent or recklessness, severity, causation, and jurisdiction. Contact and property events require their own intent and protected-interest fields. The sequence does not merge all deliberate conduct into one tort.
Read the populated authority-and-fact record
The rows populate the conduct, mental state, invaded interest, required result, causation, and unresolved privilege fields for six intentional-tort families. The rendered record contains 13 populated rows.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Read the complete record
The complete record keeps sources, stated facts, and questions for review separate. Authority records: Verbatim snapshot sources. 41 N.Y. 553: Parvi v. City of Kingston. 38 Cal. 2d 330: State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff. Synthetic facts: Classroom facts only. Contact: Actor intentionally taps another's shoulder after consent is withdrawn. Confinement: Security staff blocks the only exit while questioning a visitor. Distress: Collector uses repeated threats designed to cause extreme fright. Property: Actor enters land and exercises control over another's device. Application trace: Elements, limits, and unresolved questions. Person: Battery, assault, false imprisonment, and emotional distress require distinct interests and intent. Land and chattels: Trespass and conversion separate entry, interference, control, seriousness, and remedy. Transferred intent: Jurisdiction and tort pairing must be verified before transfer.
Narrow summary
Name the particular intentional tort, prove its prima facie elements, and only then turn to consent, privilege, defenses, causation, and remedy.