If a physician administers incorrect medication but did not intend to harm their patient, are they liable for an intentional tort?

In tort law, particularly under the Restatement of Torts, liability for an intentional tort requires that the defendant possess the intent to cause harm or at least to cause the act which results in harm. In this scenario, the physician administered incorrect medication without any intention to cause harm, which is a crucial factor in determining liability.

Intent in tort law generally refers to the actor's purpose to cause the consequences of their conduct or to act with substantial certainty that such consequences will result. Since the physician did not intend to harm the patient, they do not meet the necessary mental state required for liability under intentional torts.

The correct choice emphasizes that the lack of intent precludes liability for an intentional tort, regardless of the consequences of the act. In this case, the physician’s potential liability would be assessed under a standard of negligence rather than intentional tort, as inadvertent errors typically fall within that category. Therefore, focusing on the absence of intent clarifies why the physician cannot be liable for an intentional tort solely based on the administration of incorrect medication.