Definition
Intention is the mental state of purposefully directing one's actions toward a specific result or of being substantially certain that a result will follow from one's conduct. In law, intention is not simply desire or wish — it encompasses what a person means to bring about, and in many doctrinal contexts extends to consequences the actor knows with substantial certainty will occur, even if those consequences are not the actor's primary aim.
Intention operates across multiple fields of law, often with field-specific definitions:
1. TORT LAW: An actor intends a consequence when the purpose of the act is to produce that consequence, or when the actor knows to a substantial certainty that the consequence will result. This is the prevailing formulation in American tort law. Intent does not require malice or hostility — a surgeon who operates without consent acts intentionally even if benevolently motivated.
2. CRIMINAL LAW: Intention (often styled "intent" or rendered through terms like "purposely" or "knowingly" in modern penal codes) describes the mental state in which a person acts with the conscious object of producing a prohibited result, or is aware that the result is practically certain to follow. Specific intent requires that the actor have a particular purpose in mind; general intent requires only that the act itself be deliberate.
3. CONTRACT AND WILLS: In construing instruments, intention refers to the meaning the drafter or parties actually meant to express — what they understood the words to signify, not merely what they literally say. Courts seek the "intent of the parties" or the "testator's intent" as the governing principle for resolving ambiguity.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): A plan or design; a determination to do a specific thing; aim or purpose.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "A stretching or bending of the mind toward an object; closeness of application; a determinate purpose; design; end; drift."
The common meaning of intention aligns reasonably well with the legal meaning at its core — both center on purpose. The gap emerges at the edges. In ordinary speech, saying someone "intended" a result usually implies that result was what they wanted. Legal doctrine deliberately widens the concept to include results the actor knew were substantially certain to follow, regardless of desire. A person who blasts a building knowing a bystander is inside may legally "intend" the bystander's injury even if injuring the bystander was not the goal. Researchers reading historical pleadings or jury instructions should be alert to this doctrinal extension, which the common meaning does not capture.
---
Common Confusion
INTENTION vs. MOTIVE: These terms are frequently conflated, but law treats them as distinct. Intention concerns the immediate aim of the act — what result the actor directed conduct toward. Motive is the underlying reason why the actor wanted that result. A person may intentionally destroy a competitor's property (intention) because of business rivalry (motive). In most civil and criminal contexts, motive is legally irrelevant to establishing liability or guilt, though it may bear on sentencing, damages, or credibility. Historical sources often use the terms interchangeably; modern doctrine does not.
INTENTION vs. NEGLIGENCE: Intention implies a deliberate mental direction toward a result. Negligence involves inadvertence — the actor did not intend the harmful result but failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid it. The boundary matters because intentional torts and negligent torts carry different elements, defenses, and damage rules. A single act can sometimes be characterized either way; the classification controls which body of doctrine applies.
INTENTION vs. RECKLESSNESS: Recklessness occupies the middle ground. A reckless actor consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm but does not act with the purpose of producing it or substantial certainty that it will follow. Some intentional tort doctrines reach reckless conduct; many do not.
---
Core Elements
Where a party must establish intentional conduct, the analysis typically requires:
1. A voluntary act — an act within the actor's conscious control, not a reflex or involuntary physical response.
2. Direction of the act — the act was aimed at producing a result, or the actor knew to a substantial certainty that the result would follow.
3. The relevant result — the precise result that the doctrine requires to have been intended (e.g., contact with the person in battery; entry onto land in trespass).
Capacity bears on intention in criminal law and some tort contexts: actors who lack capacity to form intention — by reason of infancy, mental incapacity, or involuntary intoxication — may defeat an intent-based claim or charge. The threshold varies by doctrine and jurisdiction.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The word "intention" does significant definitional work that shifts depending on the legal field and era. Researchers must resist treating it as a stable term across contexts.
In tort law research, the most critical trap is the substantial certainty standard. Pre-twentieth-century cases frequently describe intention in purely purposive terms — the actor must have desired the result. The substantial certainty formulation becomes dominant in American tort law through the Restatement (Second) of Torts and the scholarship that followed. Reading earlier cases through a modern lens, or modern doctrine back onto older cases, produces distortion.
In criminal law research, the Model Penal Code's four-tier structure (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently) reorganized and clarified the older common law vocabulary of "specific intent," "general intent," and "malice." Historical cases and statutes that use "intention" or "intent" without further specification may correspond to any of the MPC tiers depending on context. Pre-MPC materials require particular care.
In the contracts and wills context, "intention of the parties" language is nearly universal but often conceals interpretive choices. Courts professing to find subjective intention are frequently enforcing an objective standard — what a reasonable person would have meant. The shift between subjective and objective intent standards is an ongoing interpretive fault line.
The transferred intent doctrine — central to the Law Mind Torts Encyclopedia entries linked above — shows how intention can migrate: an actor who intends to commit an intentional tort against one person may be held liable for the same tort against a different person. This doctrine is logically dependent on how "intention" is defined at the outset. Researchers working with transferred intent cases should anchor their analysis in the definition operative in that jurisdiction and era before engaging the transfer question.
Connections across the Law Mind corpus: intentional torts materials (transferred intent, consent as defense, intentional interference with contract) all turn on what counts as intention in the first place. The consent entry matters because consent negates what would otherwise be an intentional tort — the element it negates is precisely the legal significance of the intentional act, not the intention itself.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence (1883) defines intention in two registers. First, as a mental resolve or determination to do a particular act — the purposive sense common to both law and ordinary speech. Second, and more specifically for legal contexts, they note that intention in law refers to the design or purpose with which an act is done, and that it is to be inferred from the circumstances, the actor's declarations, and the natural consequences of the act. This inference point is significant: the 1883 treatment acknowledges that intention is rarely proved directly and must ordinarily be reconstructed from conduct.
What Rapalje & Lawrence do not fully capture is the doctrinal splitting that the twentieth century would produce. Their definition reflects a unified, largely purposive concept, without distinguishing the substantial certainty standard that tort law would later develop, or the tiered MPC vocabulary that criminal law would later adopt. The definition is workable as an entry point for research in pre-twentieth-century American and English materials but should not be carried forward uncritically into modern doctrine.
Rapalje & Lawrence also treat intention as relevant to the construction of instruments — wills, deeds, contracts — noting that the expressed intention of the parties governs interpretation where ascertainable, with ambiguity resolved by reference to the whole instrument and the surrounding circumstances. This aligns with the canon that survives in modern contract and probate law, though the modern versions have been elaborated considerably.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The substantial certainty formulation of intent in tort law is followed in most American jurisdictions but framed with variation. Some jurisdictions adhere to a more purely purposive standard in particular tort contexts. In criminal law, jurisdictions that have not adopted the Model Penal Code framework continue to apply common law intent vocabulary, which uses "specific intent" and "general intent" in ways that are not uniform across states. English law maintains its own vocabulary and treatment of intention, diverging from American doctrine in several areas including the criminal law of murder.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Intentional Torts — Persons — Transferred Intent Doctrine (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
Intentional Torts — Persons — Consent as a Defense to Intentional Torts (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
Intentional Torts — Property and Economic — Intentional Interference with Contract (The Law Mind Torts & Personal Injury Encyclopedia)
---