Business Law: Intentional Torts

In general, a tort is committed when:

(1) A duty owed by one person to another is breached, proximately causing injury or damage to the owner of a legally protected interest.

All forms of civil liability are either:

(1) Voluntarily assumed, as by contract (2) Involuntarily assumed, as imposed by law.

Define the concept of Respondeat Supeior

(Attach liability for an employee to their employer)— latin: "you boss, you respond." Liability for the employer for tortious acts committed by an employee EXAMPLE: cashier at McDonald's throws soda on customers face • You don't want to sue the employee because they are poor (they have no money!) • You would want to sue the employer

Tort: I.I.E.D: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Do you need to prove intentionality to prove IIED.

(Doesn't require intentionality, can be satisfied with recklessness which is a lower standard than intentionality) they are disregarding the probability of what their actions will result in as an outcome.

What are the three kinds of privileges that apply to defamation:

1. Absolute privilege Protects the defendant regardless of his motive or intent, is confined to those few situations in which public policy clearly favors complete freedom of speech. Such privilege includes statements made by participants in a judicial proceeding regarding that proceeding, statements made by members of Congress on the floor of congress and by members of state and local legislative bodies, statements made by certain executive branch officers while performing their governmental duties and statements regarding a third party made between spouses when they are alone. 2. Qualified or conditional privilege A person has a conditional privilege to publish defamatory matter to protect her own legitimate interests or, in some cases, the interests of another. 3. Constitutional privilege The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The U.S Supreme Court has applied these rights to the law of defamation by extending a form of constitutional privilege to defamatory and false statements about public officials or public figure so long as it is done without malice. (malice is not ill will but clear and convincing proof of the publisher's knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth) However, in a defamation suit brought by a private person (one who is neither a public official nor a public figure), the plaintiff must prove that the defendant published the defamatory and false comment with malice or negligence.

What are the FOUR elements of Intentional Infliction of emotional distress?

1. Affirmative and volitional 2. An act that is either intentional OR reckless: (without concern for the damage you might cause) — negligence = picking up a pen that fell in the car and then running a red light and getting in an accident. EXPLANATION: with the purpose of inflicting severe emotional distress, or with a substantial certainty that severe emotional distress will occur, or with deliberate disregard for a high probability that severe emotional distress will occur. 3. The act must consist of extreme and outrageous conduct: (the reasonable person must think this) EXAMPLE: pill makes dog appear to be dead for a prank QUESTION: Is this Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress? THINK: Are all elements satisfied? REASONING ANSWER: 1) yes - 2) not intentional maybe but yes reckless: even if they didn't intentionally want to cause someone this kind of emotional damage, that of a reasonable person would think that the outcome of distress was likely - hence the recklessness of the act! 4. The plaintiff must have suffered severe emotional distress: how to prove this? Severe distress means (something that has long-term effects) DIFFICULT TO PROVE - EXAMPLE: A therapist could testify that in their professional opinion they are suffering from emotional distress. EXAMPLE: put on 20 pounds, shown with pictures, receipts of alcohol etc. EXAMPLE: attempted suicide EXAMPLE: work performance suffers after that date IN SUMMARY: Have to have a physical manifestation showing the severity of the emotional distress. ** This will be the main problem of providing evidence; having a physical manifestation of the emotional distress is almost required - thus, increasing the difficulty to prove

Tort: Conversion (Only to personal property). What are the 6 elements required to prove the tort of Conversion?

1. An affirmative and volitional act 2. With intent to exercise dominion (right to do anything with the property) or control over personal property. (DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTY: real property is land and things attached, intellectual property, personal property— such as chattels that can be picked up and moved around, those not permanently affixed to the land) EXPLANATION: dominion (dominatrix female dominator- master of a dog being the owner; dominion is what the owner has over the property; writing your name in the cover of the book but only the owner should do that vs the idea of control) 3. That belongs to another 4. Without permission 5. Where the dominion or control was so great as to render the only equitable remedy that repayment of the full value of the property in question. (IT has to be the case that the damage done to the other person's property is so severe, the only way to make it right is buy her a new one) The deprivation of someone's property is total. 6. Total destruction or total deprivation of ownership. (damage exceeds the market value)

Tort: Trespass (Land). What are the FOUR elements required to prove the tort of trespass?

1. An affirmative and volitional act. 2. With intent to enter or remain upon land (or to cause some other person of thing to enter or remain upon land. Land is more than ground it includes air space. If you throw a ball over someone's land that it trespass) Note: Trespassing does not require intent to trespass. What it comes down to is your right to determine who goes on your land. Most people don't sue for trespass because it. 3. That belongs to another. 4. Without permission. EXAMPLE: neighbors have no way of really telling where the property line is, so if another neighbor doesn't intend to go on the land is trespassing? 1-stepped onto the land, wasn't forced to do it. 2-did intend to walk on the land 3-belongs to another 4-without permission. Yes, this is a trespass (however, the damages would be so small that it wouldn't be worth it to sue, even though it IS trespassing) EXAMPLE: soliciting is not trespassing because it is regarded as an automatic license for all people to approach the front door of a dwelling to interact with the person that lives there - however, this could be revoked if the person says get off my property and the solicitor doesn't, or a sign of 'no solicitation' is evident on this premise.

Explain FOUR other types of Defenses to Torts:

1. Defense of others Generally, this has the same analysis as for self defense, only the actor must put themselves into the "shoes" of the person in harms way and may then act in any manner that would have been permitted to that endangered person. EXAMPLE: imagine yourself in the position of the person in peril • Say you are at your girlfriend's house and someone is threatening her with serious bodily harm • She could use deadly force and if they can, then you can do it for them • But if they can't then you can't. 2. Defense of Property Generally, just like the analysis for self defense without deadly force. Deadly force is NEVER allowed to defend property. EXAMPLE: can commit a battery to protect your property/stuff (i.e. tackle, trip etc.) as long as there is no serious bodily injury — do you intend for it to be deadly or likely means? You can use a non-deadly force to protect your property. EXAMPLE: police officer could argue that he reasonably believed that even if he gave over the money, he was not able to trust that he would not be shot. He would then argue that he is not liable for the battery committed; not legally responsible for the consequences of the battery committed. 3. Private Necessity An actor is privileged to act when threatened (or when they reasonably believe themselves to be threatened) with an imminent and serious harm and the act taken to avoid that harm is itself reasonable under the circumstances. EXAMPLE: Why did I do this? I did it because I had to. It was necessary to avoid more serious harm to myself. EXAMPLE: Yes, I trespassed but I was running away from someone trying to harm me. EXAMPLE: stealing food vs starvation (conversion) 4. Public Necessity An actor is privileged to act if the public is threatened (or the actor reasonably believe it to be threatened) with an imminent and serious harm and the act taken to avoid that harm to the public is itself reasonable under the circumstances. EXAMPLE: you stole a car to drive someone to the hospital EXAMPLE: broke into house because there was a fire in the house, "I did this to protect the public at large" — therefore it has to be a less severe consequence.

What are the FOUR elements you must show to prove FALSE IMPRISONMENT?

1. affirmative and volitional 2. intent to confine the plaintiff or a 3rd person within boundaries set by the defendant. Confinement does not have to be physical (doesn't need walls etc) - a circle on the ground saying if you leave it you are shot would constitute 3. that directly or indirectly results in such confinement without a reasonable means of escape. (door not locked and can't get out? not false imprisonment - there is a reasonable means of escape) does a reasonable person think they have a way out? If there is a threat that can be argued that kept you from reasonably escaping? HELPFUL TIP: think of this as 2 questions: 1. am I confined? 2. is there a reasonable means of escape? 4. And the plaintiff was either conscious of or harmed by the confinement. The harm is taking away your right as a human to decide when and where and how you will move. Locking the room where you are asleep and you don't know it was locked, then not false imprisonment. OVERALL TAKE AWAY: your body is being restricted from moving freely. CASE: Ferrell v Mikula

Tort: Trespass to Chattels What are the 6 elements required to prove the tort of Trespass to Chattels:

1. affirmative and volitional 2. with intent to exercise dominion or control over personal property (real property land and things attached, intellectual property, personal property—chattels can be picked up and moved around, not permanently affixed to the land) EXPLANATION: dominion (dominatrix female dominator- master of a dog being the owner; dominion is what the owner has over the property; writing your name in the cover of the book but only the owner should do that vs control) 3. that belongs to another 4. without permission 5. which dominion or control either harms the owner, harms the chattel, or deprives the owner of the use of her chattel 6. (NOT total destruction or total deprivation of ownership) EXAMPLE: if someone scratches a car, they do not have to buy a whole new car; or if they take something without permission, even if in given back in a perfect condition when it is finally returned it is still a damage to ownership rights. REMEMBER: if the car was totaled then it is conversion.

Tort: Defamation: What are the elements required to prove Defamation for a private person:

1. affirmative and volitional act of publication (publication means you told at least one other person— talking to yourself at an audible volume is publication) 2. of a statement that tends to harm the reputation (reasonable person decides if it would harm) 3. that was of and concerning the plaintiff (liable— in print and slander- orally these two are irrelevant for the law though) 4. Plaintiff was actually harmed by the statement 5. truth is always an absolute defense to defamation **Plaintiff doesn't have to prove that it is true or false! CONSIDER: So why is it much easier for private people to win and not harder for public persons? FIRSTLY - How to define a public vs private person? Maybe take a survey. ANSWER: the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech, of religion of press— freedom of speech, defamation is not protected by the first amendment - so why is it then okay to defame public people? 1st amendment discusses to speak out against the government, to make an argument you have to criticize your opponent and the people in power to motivate people to change things. Protect public people less because it is necessary in a democratic republic because the only way to change things is to motivate others and this is done through speech.

Tort: Defamation: What are the elements required to prove Defamation for a public person? Defamation: (Where plaintiff is a public person and the matter is of public concern)

1. affirmative and volitional act of publication (publication means you told at least one other person— talking to yourself at an audible volume is publication) 2. of a statement that tends to harm the reputation (reasonable person decides if it would harm) 3. that was of and concerning the plaintiff (liable— in print and slander- orally these two are irrelevant for the law though) 4. that was false 5. defendant acted with either actual malice (to act with genuinely bad intent, with the intent to cause harm) or with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement 6. truth is always an absolute defense to defamation Hard to prove that the thing was said for the public person. Prove that what is being said is false. Prove that the person they are suing really had no way of knowing what they were saying is false, but also that the reason they did it was to harm you.

Tort: Fraudulent Misrepresentation. What are the elements required to prove Fraudulent Misrepresentation:

1. affirmative and volitional act of representation (make a representation: describing or portraying it; lawyer represents client by standing in place of client; describe some part of it.. it is a version of the thing, not the whole thing) 2. consisting of material facts or conditions (a fact is material if it effects the decision making; a fact that matters; something matters if it is serious and important/real or it is a fact which expression or concealment would reasonably result in a different decision.) 3. With knowledge that the facts or conditions represented are false (or with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity) — they have had to have had knowledge that it was a lie. If you really don't know the mpg of a car and say 40 then the assumption is that you should have found out; reasonable people investigate the claims that they make. 4. Coupled with intent to induce reliance on the representations on the part of the plaintiff. (Intentional lie or reckless disregard to what you said is not true... what is the intent EXAMPLE: wanting you to do something (reliant) based off of what I am saying. OVERALL: getting you to do something based off of the lie. 5. Plaintiff must have actually relied and such reliance must have been justifiable (being lied to isn't fraud, it is only if you rely on it and your reliance on that was justifiable). Would a reasonable person have relied on that lie? 'puffery'- claims to make the best pizza on the planet - you can't really measure that and no one actually believes that; no one relies on it and no one believes it and can't be measured', therefore it is not considered fraudulent misrepresentation ANOTHER EXAMPLE: red bull gives you wings 6. Damages stemming from the reliance. Very difficult to prove fraudulent misrepresentation. People representing facts to other people— represent a fact is to describe a material fact. How do you know it's material? You just argue about it.

What are the elements of Privacy Tort #4- False light:

1. an affirmative and volitional act 2. Whereby defendant intentionally published 3. to a wide audience 4. matter that placed the plaintiff in a false light (somehow factually true or false) that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (not about harm to a reputation but to harm because of offensiveness) 5. Defendant must have had knowledge of the falsity or have acted with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the published material (they either knew what they were saying was false or that they didn't research or take care that what they are saying is true— check the facts, if they fail to do so that is a reckless disregard for the truth) EXAMPLE: Bernie Madoff with a friend in a photo is captioned in a magazine saying, "the face of criminality". • The friend could argue that their image is being distorted by this, which wasn't the intention... • QUESTION: would you sue for defamation? • ANSWER: would NOT sue for defamation because they could be a public figure and actual malice being the reason it was there to harm him. • CONSIDER: what if a private person must show that your reputation was actually damaged, but could sue for false light... • Harder to prove because defamation is to only one person vs false light is to be to a wide audience. • Defamation is that they don't smoke pot vs false light proving that the bong photo was photoshopped. o ^^^ It harms your right to control your own image in the world.

What are the elements of Privacy Tort #2- Intrusion:

1. an affirmative and volitional act 2. with intent to intrude in to the plaintiffs private affairs 3. via unreasonable or improper means- (to be determined by the reasonable person) 4. from which intrusion confidential information was (or nearly was) obtained— (information not exposed to the public) EXAMPLE: someone hacking into your email account - it doesn't matter if they found confidential information or not, it was intrusion into your private affairs. EXAMPLE: could have found something but didn't, it is good enough to be an intrusion. EXAMPLE: learned my address and phone number by hacking into my email wouldn't be intrusion because that is not confidential information, it is public. EXAMPLE: NSA was by law allowed to get surveillance, not intrustion

What are the elements of Privacy Tort #3- Public disclosure of private facts:

1. an affirmative and volitional act of publication (telling one other person) 2. with intent to disclose information (to reveal information) 3. concerning the plaintiff 4. that was private and that a reasonable person would not want publicized 5. which was publicized to a wide audience (it eventually needs to be revealed to a wide audience) 6. (but note: if plaintiff is a public figure and the information is newsworthy, it may be allowed)— (if the information is of public concern of a public person than that is a defense to the revelation of private facts.) • EXAMPLE: Chris Christi could sue about this. He could win if it weren't for the last note, which protects the freedom of the press. It is not what should be newsworthy it is what IS of interest to the public. • EXAMPLE: still qualifies if you only told one person and they publicized it What is 'newsworthy': just because we think something should not be news worthy (i.e. celebrities cheating)... it IS in the news so most likely should be considered 'newsworthy'.

What are the 5 ways in which Repondeat Superior applies? (Attach liability for an employee to their employer)• They have to demonstrate that one of these 5 things are true.

1. the act was within the scope of employment, or (if you are harmed by something that employee normally does within their work can sue employer).. ordinary job of a waiter does this.. could make argument that part of a waiters job is to decide who gets to eat there or not- people throw people out 2. the act was explicitly authorized or direct by the employer or an authorized managerial agent thereof, or 3. the actor was a manager, or (managers ARE the company, everything they do represents the company doing it and assigns liability to the company, the person you hire as manager are tying liability to your company) not defined by title but the authority that you actually have 4. the actor was an agent of employer unfit for the duty assigned, or (EXAMPLE if a UPS driver was drunk and had a record of being drunk, then you hired someone with a record of drunk driving to drive trucks) this also makes it unfair for past criminals that won't hire people with a bad record because they could be held liable. 5. the act was ratified after the fact by employer of some authorized agent thereof with the power or authority to so ratify such action (this is how they got to sue Howard Johnson's witnesses who had seen the manager pat the employee on the back saying he 'did the right thing'). BUT IMAGINE if the manager witnessed the whole thing and did nothing to stop it, is this ratification? We don't know.

Define the tort of Defamation.

A false communication that injures a person's reputation by disgracing him and diminishing the respect in which he is held

Explain Self Defense (with deadly force)

An actor may use force that is likely or intended to be deadly or to cause serious bodily harm, if: 1. the actor reasonably believes that another is about to intentionally inflict an unprivileged harmful or offensive contact upon them, and (Reasonably believe you are about to suffer a battery) 2. the actor reasonably believes that they are thereby being put in peril of death or serious bodily harm, and (the battery you were about to suffer would cause death or serious harm to you) 3. the actor reasonably believes that their peril can only safely be avoided by the use of deadly force (meaning retreat or the relinquishment of some right will not reasonably be seen to suffice) reasonably believe it is the only way to escape... give keys, run away, give wallet, etc. (the relinquishment of some right and/or retreat never applies when the actor would be retreating from their own dwelling or relinquishing their right to bar entry to one seeking to enter it) — (if in privacy of your own home the first two apply but the 3rd doesn't.. you don't have to run away from your own home) EXAMPLE: What if you have a lot of land? • You don't have to be in the walls of the house. • What counts as your home is dwelling and curtilage surrounding the home that the people regularly use. • BUT REMEMBER: this is all in regards to defending the self - not your house (deadly force is not allowed to defend property) ** Castle Doctrine: deadly force does not have to be a last resort in terms of your own home (common law)

Explain Self-Defense (without deadly force)

An actor may use force that is not likely or intended to be deadly or to cause serious bodily harm, if: (Death and severe bodily harm are the same in the law— raping someone is deadly force regardless if they die or not) 1. the actor reasonably believes that another is about to intentionally inflict an unprivileged harmful of offensive (battery) contact upon them, and (can only use self-defense against battery— reasonably believe that you are about to be battered) 2. the force used by the actor to avoid or resist this contact is reasonable under the circumstances (EXAMPLE: if someone is trying to kiss you, you don't have to punch them you can just push them away) EXAMPLE: I had to punch you to defend myself so therefore there is no liability. • If you reasonably believe that you are about to be battered and the force you are applying is only enough to stop the battery less the deadly harm or severe bodily harm. • If someone hits and runs away you can't chase after them and tackle them because this is not self-defense to prevent a battery, it already happened.

Tort 1: What is Battery (Harm to the person) ?

Battery: is an intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact.

If Battery is an intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact, what does constitutes as bodily offensive contact?

Bodily contact is offensive if it would offend a reasonable person's sense of dignity.

Explain the of defenses to Torts: CONTEXT: an event has occurred and the plaintiff is harmed, served papers, filed in the courts, a trial date is set, discovery and evidence, etc. — plaintiff makes prima fascia case - first way defendant wins is by saying, "what the plaintiff is saying happened did not actually happen and defeat prima fascia case" or 2nd I did do it and my excuse is good enough that I shouldn't be punished at all (i.e. it occurred but there is a reason why the Defendant shouldn't be punished)

Consent- "I asked them before doing it and they said okay." EXAMPLE: asked permission to punch you in the face 1. consent in fact (Actual consent) asked to do something and they said yes 2. implied in fact consent (i didn't ask you if I could punch you but we are both participants in a boxing ring and you punched him— implicitly you consented to this by stepping into the ring)— EXAMPLE: battery did happen if you were tackled in football, but you should not be punished because a good defense is playing football which implicitly consents tackling and physical contact as part of the game BUT you could sue for being tackled in touch football 3. implied in law consent- (as a matter of law we will never consider these things as battery) EXAMPLE: a mother grabs her child and tugs his shirt, surely it is a battery BUT we allow moms to do that in regards to law ANOTHER EXAMPLE: romantic relationships with slapping butts 4. informed consent (medical care normally) EXAMPLE: you go to the doctor to get your appendix taken out. This is a battery, obviously, but if you sue for this you would lose because you gave consent. A doctor's responsibility is to get informed consent by explaining everything to you so that you understand and sign a document. 5. the emergency privilege (and good samaritan laws)- (if the reason you committed the tort was a reasonable response to a reasonably perceived emergency, you could still be wrong but as long as it was reasonable there is no room for legal punishment). EXAMPLE: is it reasonable to perform CPR on someone not breathing? YES. Did you perceive a reasonable emergency? YES. 6. (consent may be invalidated by fraud, duress, or a lack of capacity)— (making the argument that you were so drunk that you couldn't understand the meaning of the question you were asked, then your consent could be revoked) EXAMPLE: asking someone with dementia to sign a contract

What is the difference between Defamation and False Light?

Defamation vs. False Light: 1. Unlike defamation, false light does NOT have to be a 'statement' 2. It is not enough to just harm the reputation (defamation) 3. False light is if reasonable people would find it highly offensive 4. Unlike defamation, false light HAS to be published to a wide audience. o For public people: there is no malice requirement, they don't have to prove that their reputation was harmed (as they do with defamation); they just have to prove that it was false and that reasonable people would think it was offensive.

In the tort of Defamation, what is the difference between Libel and Slander:

If the defamatory communication is handwritten, or in any other medium similar such as television it is designated as libel. If is spoken or oral, it is designated as slander.

What are the elements of Privacy tort #1: Misappropriation :

Much newer torts in law) response to public people not being able to win defamation suits; designed for public people 1. an affirmative and volitional act 2. with intent to use the identity of the plaintiff 3. without permission 4. for advertising or other trade purposes CASE: 1992 White vs Samsung. Vanna White Wheel of Fortune (the game show is one that if they guess the letter correctly she displays the correct letter) The robot created by Samsung "is wearing a long gown, blond wig, and large jewelry - turning a block letter on a game-board - standing on what looks to be the Wheel of Fortune game show set". White's name is not used, there is no image of her, and her voice isn't heard - there is no actual/literal reference. What did Samsung do: they made a commercial (affirmative) they weren't forced to do it (volitional). Then intended to use her identity (how do we know they intended— if you didn't know who she was would this commercial work on you?). The success of the commercial depends on if people understand her (Vanna White's) identity. Vanna White wins. Proved that identity could be separated from the human - this case changed a lot of what happens in the media. ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Kim Kardashian vs Old Navy (Kim K identity used as a girl in the ads - walking down red carpets, primped and pampered by professional stylists. Does this ad / would this ad make sense if you don't know who Kim K. is?) ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Lohan vs E-Trade (Super Bowl ad of a baby talking about another 'Lindsey' baby that is a 'milkaholic')

What are the THREE elements one must prove in order to prove BATTERY. Fail to prove any one of these and you loose.

PROVING BATTERY: 1. Affirmative and Volitional Act Affirmative: an act actually done. REMEMBER: we punish doing things. Failure to act is not generally punishable. EXAMPLE: someone runs in on fire and you don't throw water on them o QUESTION: Is it an affirmative act? Is it a crime? o ANSWER: No! o Not affirmative o Not a crime o Not a tort o Did not do something... Volitional: purposeful and voluntarily, a choice. EXAMPLE: tripping and falling and colliding with someone o QUESTION: Is it volitional? Is it a crime? o ANSWER: No! o Not volitional - did not purposely do it o Not a crime 2. Intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff or a 3rd person . Intent implies a cause and effect in train of thought. Meant to have this thing happen by committing this action. Thought about what the consequence would be. An idea of premeditation Premeditation: having a goal in mind and act toward that goal. o EXAMPLE: throwing a ball and it hits you in the face o QUESTION: Is it volitional? Is it a crime? Was the ball thrown volitionally? o ANSWER: Yes! o Did purposely do it o Ball clearly thrown o QUESTION: Is it intentional? Was there intent to hit you in the face? o Might Think: intent was to catch it 3. Contact has to occur with the person or an object closely identified with the plaintiff's body "That directly or indirectly causes a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff or an object closely identified with the plaintiff's body". EXAMPLE: threw a snowball o QUESTION: Affirmative and volitional? o ANSWER: Yes! Snowball was actually thrown on purpose and/or voluntarily o QUESTION: Intent to cause harm and contact actually happened? o ANSWER: Yes! Even a backpack hit still counts - intent to touch can be transferred to a 3rd person that got effected, even if the defendants intent wasn't to harm that 3rd person

Tort 2: Define the tort of False Imprisonment.

This tort of false imprisonment or false arrest is the act of intentionally confining a person against her will within fixed boundaries if the person is conscious of the confinement or harmed by it. Note: Merely obstructing a person's freedom of movement is not false imprisonment so long as a reasonable alternative exit is available.

In certain cases, however, courts may award exemplary or punitive damages, which are ?

are damages over and above the amount necessary to compensate the plaintiff. In cases in which the defendant's tortious conduct has been intentional-or ore in some states, reckless-and outrageous, showing malice or fraudulent or evil motive, most courts permit a jury to award punitive damages.

Intent, as used in tort law, does not require a hostile or evil motive. Rather, it means what ?

it means that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act or that he believes the consequences are substantially (almost) certain to result from it. A person acts with intent to produce a consequence if: (a) The person acts with the purpose of producing that consequence. (b) The person acts knowing that the consequence substantially certain to result.