The most famous intentional tort cases in American law are a short list that every torts student learns: Garratt v. Dailey, the O.J. Simpson civil wrongful death verdict, New York Times v. Sullivan, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Snyder v. Phelps, Katko v. Briney, and Enright v. Groves. Each one answers a different question about when deliberate conduct creates civil liability, and together they draw the lines courts still use to decide battery, defamation, emotional distress, defense of property, and false imprisonment claims.
Garratt v. Dailey and the Meaning of Intent
Five-year-old Brian Dailey moved a lawn chair just as Ruth Garratt was sitting down. She fell and fractured her hip. The 1955 Washington Supreme Court decision in her case asked whether a child that young could form the intent battery requires.1Justia. Garratt v. Dailey
The court said he could, and in explaining why it set the standard that still governs. Intent does not mean a desire to injure. It is enough that the person knew with substantial certainty their action would cause the harmful contact.1Justia. Garratt v. Dailey If Brian knew Ruth was about to sit where the chair had been, the intent element was satisfied, no matter his feelings toward her. The court found Ruth’s damages totaled $11,000.2Westlaw. Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash.2d 197 (1955)
That is the practical lesson. Malice is not required. Hostility is not required. What matters is whether the actor understood what would happen next.
The O.J. Simpson Civil Verdict
After O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder in 1995, the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman sued him for wrongful death. In 1997 a civil jury found that Simpson had committed the killings “willfully and wrongfully, with oppression and malice,” and awarded $33.5 million: $8.5 million in compensatory damages to the Goldman family plus $12.5 million in punitive damages to each family’s estate.3Justia. Rufo v. Simpson
The explanation for the opposite results is the burden of proof. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil plaintiff needs only a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it was more likely than not that the defendant did the act. That gap is the reason an intentional tort victim can pursue a civil claim regardless of what happens in the criminal courts, and the Simpson case is the clearest example of how the same facts can produce opposite verdicts.
New York Times v. Sullivan and the Actual Malice Standard
In 1960 The New York Times ran a full-page advertisement describing police actions against civil rights protesters in Montgomery, Alabama. The ad contained several factual errors. L.B. Sullivan, the city’s public safety commissioner, said the criticism of police reflected on him personally and sued for libel. An Alabama jury awarded him $500,000.4Legal Information Institute. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
The Supreme Court reversed unanimously and created the actual malice standard. A public official suing for defamation must prove the publisher either knew the statement was false or published it with reckless disregard for whether it was true.5Justia. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Carelessness is not enough. The plaintiff has to show knowing falsity or indifference to the truth.
The rule makes defamation suits by public officials and public figures very hard to win, which was the point. Without it, powerful people could use libel suits to punish critics. Private citizens face a lower bar and generally only have to show the publisher acted negligently.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Hustler Magazine published a parody advertisement depicting Reverend Jerry Falwell in a crude fictional scenario involving his mother. Falwell sued for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court held that a public figure seeking damages for emotional distress based on a publication must show a false statement of fact made with actual malice.6Justia. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell Because the parody was so outlandish that no reasonable person would mistake it for a factual claim, Falwell could not meet that standard.
The decision separates expression that is clearly opinion, satire, or rhetorical exaggeration from material that reads as a factual assertion. Public figures have to tolerate even deeply offensive ridicule, so long as it does not masquerade as reporting.
Snyder v. Phelps
When Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq, members of the Westboro Baptist Church picketed near his funeral in Maryland, standing on public land roughly 1,000 feet away with signs that read “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “God Hates the USA.” Snyder’s father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.7Legal Information Institute. Snyder v. Phelps
The Supreme Court overturned the verdict 8-1. Because the signs addressed broad public issues rather than private matters about Snyder personally, the speech was protected by the First Amendment, and letting a jury impose liability based on how outrageous it found the speech would punish Westboro for its viewpoint.7Legal Information Institute. Snyder v. Phelps
Read with Hustler, the lesson for emotional distress claims is that outrage alone does not create liability. When the conduct is speech on public topics, the First Amendment is close to a complete shield.
Katko v. Briney and the Limits of Defending Property
Edward and Bertha Briney were tired of repeated break-ins at a farmhouse they owned but did not live in. They rigged a 20-gauge shotgun to fire when someone opened a bedroom door. Marvin Katko entered the farmhouse to steal old jars and bottles, opened the door, and was shot in the leg, suffering permanent injuries.8Justia. Katko v. Briney
The Iowa Supreme Court held that a property owner cannot use deadly force to protect an unoccupied building. A spring gun cannot judge whether the person entering is a genuine threat to life, and the law values human safety above the protection of property. The jury awarded Katko $20,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in punitive damages.8Justia. Katko v. Briney
Reasonable, non-deadly force to remove a trespasser is still allowed, and an owner who is present and genuinely fears for their safety has broader self-defense options. Mechanical devices that can maim or kill anyone who triggers them are categorically off-limits.
Enright v. Groves and False Imprisonment
A Colorado police officer approached a woman because her dog was running loose in violation of a local leash ordinance. When she refused to produce her driver’s license, the officer told her she could show the license or go to jail. He arrested her and took her to the station.9Justia. Enright v. Groves
The court found false imprisonment. No law required Enright to produce a driver’s license during an investigation into a dog-leash violation. That she was in fact guilty of the leash violation did not matter, because the officer did not arrest her for that offense. He arrested her for something that was not a crime.9Justia. Enright v. Groves The jury awarded $500 in actual damages and $1,000 in punitive damages.
An arrest is lawful only when the officer has a warrant or probable cause for the specific offense that prompted it. Guilt of a different offense does not retroactively justify the arrest. False imprisonment claims against law enforcement turn on why the officer said they were making the arrest.
What the Cases Have in Common
Two Standards of Proof
A civil intentional tort plaintiff needs to show only that it was more likely than not that the defendant committed the act. A criminal prosecution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Simpson verdict is the sharpest illustration, but the same gap plays out in ordinary assault and battery cases where prosecutors decline to file charges and the victim still has a viable civil claim. A civil plaintiff can also win after a criminal acquittal, because “not guilty” is not the same as “innocent.”
Insurance Usually Will Not Pay
Standard homeowners and commercial liability policies exclude harm that is “expected or intended” by the policyholder. When a defendant loses an intentional tort case, the insurance company does not step in. The judgment comes out of personal assets. This is the central financial consequence of an intentional tort finding, and it is one reason these cases often settle for less than the claimed damages when the defendant has limited means.
Filing Deadlines Are Short
Every intentional tort claim has a statute of limitations. Deadlines run as short as one year in some states for assault, battery, and defamation, and as long as six years in others for certain property-related torts. Most states set the window at one to three years for personal injury-based intentional torts. The discovery rule can delay the start of the clock until the victim learned or reasonably should have learned of the harm. Because the windows are short and missing one ends the claim permanently, anyone considering a suit should check their state’s deadline early.