Here's a breakdown:
Objective:
* Focus on the external act: The law focuses on the actor's conduct and whether it demonstrates an intent to cause the harmful result, not their inner thoughts or motivations.
* "Substantial certainty" standard: The intent requirement is typically satisfied if the actor knew with substantial certainty that their actions would cause the harmful result. This means the actor doesn't necessarily have to desire the result, only that it was practically inevitable given their actions.
Subjective:
* Actor's knowledge: The law considers the actor's actual knowledge and understanding when determining whether they had the requisite intent. For example, if someone was clearly drunk and acted recklessly, their state of mind might be considered in determining whether they acted with intent.
* "Transferred intent": In some cases, the law allows intent to be transferred from one victim to another. For example, if someone throws a rock at person A but hits person B, they may be found liable for battery against person B based on the transferred intent.
Example:
Imagine someone throws a rock at a car, intending to damage it. The rock misses the car and hits a passerby. In this case, the person may be liable for battery, even though they didn't specifically intend to hit the passerby. The law would recognize that they acted with the intent to cause harm, even if the harm wasn't directed at the intended victim.
Conclusion:
While intent in torts is primarily an objective standard, there are some subjective considerations that can factor into the analysis. Ultimately, the court will examine the actor's conduct and their actual knowledge to determine whether they acted with the requisite intent.