Skip to main content

Scaling and Innovation Culture

Post a Comment

The Business Law Playbook Series — Playbook 1: Intentional Torts and Business Torts

The Business Law Playbook Series —

Playbook 1: Intentional Torts and Business Torts

Last Verified: 2026-09-08 | Author: Kateule Sydney | Published by Kat-Syd Resources Hub
Bronze scales of justice with gavel on wooden desk representing tort law and intentional torts
Intentional torts protect individuals and businesses from wrongful acts committed with intent — from assault and battery to business torts like tortious interference

Summary: Playbook 1 examines intentional torts and business torts under common law, covering the purpose of tort law, intentional torts against persons (assault, battery, false imprisonment), defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional torts against property (trespass, conversion), business torts (tortious interference, unfair competition), and defenses to intentional torts including consent, privilege, and necessity.

Chapter 1 — The Purpose of Tort Law

1.1 Defining Tort Law

A tort is a wrongful act, other than a breach of contract, that results in harm or injury to another and leads to civil liability. Tort law is designed to provide remedies for the invasion of various protected interests, including personal physical safety, property rights, and intangible interests such as privacy and reputation.

Two notions serve as the basis of all torts: wrongs and compensation.

  • Compensation: Providing monetary damages to make the injured party whole through compensatory damages (special and general).
  • Deterrence: Discouraging harmful conduct through punitive damages, particularly in intentional tort actions.
  • Loss Spreading: Allowing businesses to distribute risk through insurance and pricing.
  • Corrective Justice: Holding wrongdoers accountable for the harm they cause.

Chapter 2 — Intentional Torts Against Persons

2.1 Assault

Assault is an intentional, unexcused act that creates in another person a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact. It is any word or action intended to make another person fearful of immediate physical harm — a reasonably believable threat. Apprehension is not the same as fear; the interest protected is freedom from having to expect harmful or offensive contact.

The common law has long recognized the principle that "the apprehension of immediate contact is enough; the contact itself is not necessary." The tort is complete upon the arousal of apprehension.

2.2 Battery

Battery is the completion of the act that caused the apprehension, resulting in harmful or offensive physical contact intentionally performed. Battery involves unexcused, harmful or offensive physical contact that is intentionally performed. Under common law, the underlying motive does not matter — only the intent to bring about the harmful or offensive contact.

In Caudle v. Betts, the court held that it was irrelevant that the defendant had shown no malice nor intended to hurt the plaintiff; he intended the physical contact and is liable for all consequences. The principle is that intentional contact, once established, makes the actor liable for all resulting harm.

2.3 False Imprisonment

False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or restraint of another person's activities without reasonable cause and without consent. It interferes with the freedom to move without restraint and can be accomplished through physical barriers, physical restraint, or threats of physical force. Moral pressure or threats of future harm do not constitute false imprisonment.

The common law requires that the confinement be complete — the plaintiff must have no reasonable means of escape. The tort protects the interest in freedom from restraint.

Chapter 3 — Defamation, Libel, and Slander

3.1 The Elements of Defamation

Defamation involves false statements that harm another's reputation — anything published or publicly spoken that causes injury to another's good name, reputation, or character.

Libel — Defamation in writing or another permanent form (such as a digital recording).

Slander — Defamation in oral form.

Public personalities can win a defamation suit only by proving actual malice. A "reasonable person" standard is used to determine whether statements are understood as fact or opinion.

Statements that are clearly opinion or ridicule — such as calling someone a "dictator" or "Nazi" — are not taken literally and are not actionable. In Fleming v. Benzaquin, the court ruled in favor of the defendant because a reasonable person would understand the words to be opinion and ridicule, not statements of fact.

Under the Defamation Act 2013 (UK), claimants must prove that the publication caused (or was likely to cause) serious reputational harm, as established in Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27. The common law presumption that a defamatory statement causes actual harm has been replaced by this statutory requirement.

Chapter 4 — Invasion of Privacy and Publicity Rights

4.1 The Right to Privacy

The common law recognizes a right to privacy, protected through several torts:

  • Intrusion into an individual's affairs or seclusion — Unreasonable interference with another's solitude.
  • Appropriation — Unauthorized use of another's name or likeness for commercial purposes.
  • Public Disclosure of Private Facts — Publicizing private matters that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
  • False Light — Portraying someone in a misleading way.

The right of publicity protects a person's interest in the commercial value of their identity. Businesses must be careful not to use a person's name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes without consent.

In the United States, the "intrusion upon seclusion" privacy tort requires a willed act by the defendant causing such a degree of seriousness that the ordinary person should not reasonably be expected to endure it.

In the United Kingdom, protection of privacy has developed primarily through the tort of breach of confidence and misuse of private information, following the Human Rights Act 1998. In Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967, Lord Justice Sedley argued that the law should "recognise privacy itself as a legal principle drawn from the fundamental value of personal autonomy."

Chapter 5 — Intentional Torts Against Property

5.1 Trespass

Trespass is an intentional act that interferes with another's possession of land. The mere infringement of a right is itself a cause of action, even without pecuniary loss. A person "intends" to enter another's land if they consciously intrude upon it, even if they honestly and reasonably believe that the land is theirs or that they have a lawful right to enter.

Trespass to personal property involves wrongfully taking or interfering with another's personal property.

5.2 Conversion

Conversion is the wrongful taking or retaining possession of an individual's personal property and placing it in the service of another. Conversion involves using another's goods in a manner inconsistent with the owner's right to possess them. If the defendant has acted in good faith, the tort bears with especial harshness.

The common law recognizes that conversion is a serious interference with property rights, requiring the defendant to pay the full value of the converted property, even if the defendant acted in good faith.

Chapter 6 — Business Torts

6.1 Tortious Interference

Business torts involve wrongful interference with another's business rights and relationships. Tortious interference is harming an existing contract or a prospective relationship that has a definite expectation of success.

The leading case of Lumley v Gye (1853) established that a person can be liable for intentionally inducing a breach of contract. This tort is accessorial, meaning liability depends upon there being a breach of contract committed by another.

6.2 Unfair Competition and Passing Off

Unfair competition includes passing off and other forms of commercial misrepresentation. The tort of passing off occurs when a defendant makes a false representation in the course of trade that is calculated to deceive customers in a way likely to damage the claimant's goodwill.

At common law, liability for intentional harm only exists when some specific intentional tort is committed, and general principles of liability for intentional harm have been rejected by the House of Lords.

Chapter 7 — Defenses to Intentional Torts

7.1 Justification and Consent

Defenses to intentional torts can be placed within a threefold system: (1) absent element defenses (the tort has not been committed), (2) justification defenses (there was reason to commit the tort), and (3) public policy defenses (the interests of the state intrude to deprive the claimant of an action).

Consent — When a person consents to the act, this may be a complete defense. Consent to a damaging act removes tort liability.

Self-Defense — An individual may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to prevent harmful contact.

Defense of Others — A person may act reasonably to protect others in real or apparent danger.

Defense of Property — Reasonable force may be used to remove intruders, though deadly force is never permitted solely to protect property.

Privilege — A special right, advantage, or immunity that enables a person to avoid liability.

Necessity — A defense when the defendant acted to prevent a greater harm.

7.2 Mitigation in Defamation

In defamation actions, defendants may mitigate damages by showing that the damage is partly caused by the claimant's own conduct, that people did not believe the statement, or that the claimant's reputation was already poor (the rule in Pamplin).

FAQ

What is the difference between assault and battery?

Assault is an intentional act that creates a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact — the threat itself. Battery is the actual completion of that act, resulting in harmful or offensive physical contact. An assault can occur without a battery (e.g., swinging a punch and missing), and a battery can occur without an assault (e.g., being hit from behind without seeing it coming).

What is the difference between libel and slander?

Libel is defamation in written or permanent form (including digital recordings, newspapers, and online posts). Slander is defamation in oral or spoken form. Libel is generally considered more serious because written statements have greater permanence and reach.

What is tortious interference and when does it apply?

Tortious interference occurs when a defendant intentionally harms an existing contract or a prospective business relationship that has a definite expectation of success. The leading case of Lumley v Gye (1853) established that a person can be liable for intentionally inducing a breach of contract. The tort is accessorial — liability depends upon there being a breach of contract committed by another.

What is the difference between trespass and conversion?

Trespass involves an unauthorized interference with another's possession of land or personal property without taking ownership. Conversion involves wrongfully taking or retaining possession of personal property and placing it in the service of another — essentially exercising dominion and control over the property inconsistent with the owner's rights. Conversion is more serious and often results in the defendant having to pay the full value of the property.

References

Adapted from the Original work by Kateule Sydney

Public domain 2026 · This adaptation follows the playbook series format

Kat-Syd Resources Hub — Your trusted source for legal education

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment