Torts, generally, compensate victims for harm or loss caused to them, or to their property, by another person’s act or omission.
Some torts are actionable, (i.e. for which you can base a claim in court) without regard as to whether or not the alleged tortfeasor intended the harm - or loss - caused by his or her act or omission.
For example, for strict liability torts, absolute liability or without-fault liability torts, the law will hold the tortfeasor liable without any evidence as to whether the act or omission was intended.
But intentional torts require evidence of the tortfeasor’s intent to cause harm or loss, or his or her inadvertence or
negligence.
A majority of intentional tort cases allege negligence, with the qualifications inherent in that concept as regards to conduct which, insomuch as falling short of a judicial standard of care, is taken as intentional. That and the very practical reality of negligence being much easier to establish than intent.
In Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort:
"If I strike you, then provided I cause you hurt and that hurt could have been forseeable to a reasonable man then my conduct amounts to the tort of negligence even if the court is in doubt whether I acted intentionally."
Historically, tort law cared little for intent. To defer to the historical example, common law jurist J. Baker uses:
“The inattentive archer who shot a passerby unawares or the careless driver who ran him down, were just as much guilty of battery as of they had injured him deliberately. Negligence in the sense of inadvertence was irrelevant to the classification of the wrong.”
French: délit intentionnel.
REFERENCES:
- Baker, J., An Introduction to English Legal History (England: Butterworths-Lexis-Nexis, 2002), 4th Edition, page 402-403
- Duhaime, Lloyd, Intentional Torts
- Duhaime, Lloyd, Tort & Personal Injury Law
- Duhaime, Lloyd, Tort & Personal Injury Law Dictionary