Torts

Intent exists if the defendant acts with the purpose of causing the consequence or knows to a substantial certainty that the consequence will result. Mere risk, even a high one, is recklessness or negligence, not intent.

No. Intent refers to the purpose to cause the contact (or knowledge it is substantially certain), not the motive behind it; a prankster or a would-be helper who intends the contact still has the required intent.

If D intends one of the five trespass-derived torts (assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels) against one person or in one form, the intent transfers to a different victim or a different one of those five torts actually caused. It generally does not apply to IIED or conversion.

Battery. Kai's intent to commit assault on Lena transfers both to a different person (Moss) and to a different tort (battery), so Kai is liable to Moss for the harmful contact.

Yes. Anyone capable of forming the requisite intent (purpose or substantial-certainty knowledge) is liable; there is no fixed minimum age, and insanity is no defense if the person intended the contact. Parents are not vicariously liable at common law, though statutes may impose limited liability.

D acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact or the imminent apprehension of one, and P is thereby put in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.