Transferred intent CASES

In English tort law, transferred intent explains liability where a defendant intends an unlawful contact or threat against one person but another person is affected. If a defendant intends a battery or assault on A and, through mis-aim or misapplication, B is struck or put in reasonable fear, the requisite intention is treated as present for the tort against B. The doctrine prevents a wrongdoer escaping liability because the precise victim differed from the plan. It is a tort analogue of the criminal law idea sometimes called “transferred malice”.

Definition and principles

Battery and assault are intentional torts. For battery, the defendant must intend the contact that is unlawful (or be reckless as to it); for assault, the defendant must intend to cause the claimant reasonably to apprehend imminent unlawful force. That intention can be directed at a different individual from the ultimate claimant. If the elements of the tort are otherwise met, the fact the wrong person was affected does not defeat liability. Ordinary social contact remains outside battery; consent and other defences still apply.

How it applies

• Battery mis-aim: throwing a glass at A but hitting B; the intention to apply unlawful force transfers to B.
• Assault spill-over: aggressively raising a fist at A in a confined space and causing B, directly in the line of threat, reasonably to fear immediate force; the intention to threaten can ground an assault on B.
• Trespass to goods/land (by analogy): an intentional act directed at one chattel or plot that invades another may still found trespass if the act was intentional and the interference direct, even if the specific target was misidentified.

Limits and clarifications

Transferred intent does not turn negligence into an intentional tort: a pure accident without intention or recklessness remains negligence at most. Nor does it expand the torts’ elements—assault still requires a reasonable apprehension of imminent force, and battery still requires an intentional (or reckless) application of force. Defences (for example, self-defence, consent, lawful authority) apply in the usual way and are assessed with respect to the actual claimant. Where conduct is reckless rather than purposeful, liability may still arise for battery if recklessness to the contact is established, but that is a matter of the underlying fault standard, not transfer.

Relationship to criminal law

Criminal cases often discuss “transferred malice” (mens rea moving from intended to actual victim for the same type of harm). Tort uses simpler language: intention as to unlawful contact or imminent threat can be aimed at one person yet satisfy the intentional element for another, provided the other ingredients of the tort are present.

Practical importance

For claimants, focus on proving an intentional (or reckless) act directed at a person coupled with a direct interference or threat that in fact affected the claimant.

For defendants, distinguish mistakes of identity (which do not help) from true accidents (which do). Assess defences against the facts as they involved the actual claimant, not the intended target.

In vicarious liability cases, the close connection test applies in the usual way: an employer may be liable for an employee’s transferred-intent battery if it is closely connected with the role.

See also: Assault; Battery; Trespass to the person; Recklessness; Vicarious liability; Self-defence; Negligence (contrast with intentional torts).