Did Atlanta Happen to You? Click Here for a Free Case Evaluation
Most personal injury cases involve carelessness — someone did not mean to cause harm, but did through inattention. An intentional tort is different: the person meant to do the act that caused the injury.
Common examples include assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The person does not necessarily have to intend the specific injury, only the underlying act.
Because the conduct is deliberate rather than careless, intentional torts raise two issues ordinary negligence cases usually do not: insurance coverage and punitive damages.
A tort is simply a civil wrong that causes harm. Most torts are based on negligence — a failure to act with reasonable care.
An intentional tort requires that the person meant to commit the act itself, such as striking someone or confining them against their will, even if they did not intend every consequence that followed.
That distinction changes both how the claim is proven and how it is likely to be paid.
Many liability insurance policies exclude coverage for intentional acts, on the theory that insurance is meant to cover accidents, not deliberate harm.
That does not mean an intentional tort victim is automatically left without a source of recovery — coverage disputes turn on specific policy language, and some claims are framed to include a negligence component as well, such as a property owner’s negligent security.
It does mean the insurance question needs to be examined early, since it directly affects whether there is a practical way to collect a judgment.
Georgia generally reserves punitive damages for conduct showing wilful misconduct, malice, or a conscious indifference to consequences — a description that intentional torts often satisfy more easily than ordinary carelessness does.
That can make the difference between a claim limited to actual losses and one that also seeks to punish the wrongdoer.
Punitive damages in Georgia generally require the higher clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, which is worth keeping in mind when evaluating what a claim can realistically recover.
Assault, battery, and false imprisonment are common examples — situations where the person meant to commit the underlying act, unlike an ordinary accident caused by carelessness.
Often, though not always. Many liability policies exclude intentional acts, so whether coverage applies depends on the specific policy language and sometimes on whether a negligence-based claim can also be brought.
Often more readily than in an ordinary negligence case, since intentional conduct more easily meets Georgia’s standard of wilful misconduct or conscious indifference required for punitive damages.
See how our attorneys fight for personal injury victims.
Our personal injury attorneys have spent 20+ years fighting for accident victims across Georgia. Your consultation is free, and you pay nothing unless we win.