Legal Definitions - general intent

General intent refers to a situation where a person intends to perform a specific action, but does not necessarily intend or wish for the particular consequences that result from that action.

In legal terms, it means the individual consciously decided to do the act itself, even if they did not foresee or desire the specific harm or outcome that followed. This concept is important in both civil law (for certain intentional torts) and criminal law (for some crimes), where proving general intent can be sufficient to establish legal responsibility.

• Example 1 (Civil Law - Battery): Imagine a person, Mark, playfully shoves his friend, Lisa, to get her attention during a crowded event. Mark intends to push Lisa, but he does not intend for her to lose her balance, fall, and sprain her ankle. Even though Mark did not wish for Lisa to be injured, his conscious decision to perform the act of pushing her demonstrates general intent. This could be sufficient for Lisa to pursue a civil claim of battery against Mark, as he intended the physical contact, regardless of his lack of intent for the resulting injury.

• Example 2 (Criminal Law - Simple Assault/Battery): Consider a scenario where Sarah, frustrated during an argument, throws a glass of water across the room, aiming it at the wall. She intends to throw the water as an expression of anger. However, the glass accidentally slips from her hand and strikes her roommate, David, in the arm, causing a minor bruise. Sarah did not intend to hit David or cause him injury; her intent was simply to throw the water. Nevertheless, her conscious act of throwing the glass of water, which resulted in unwanted physical contact, could satisfy the general intent requirement for a crime like simple assault or battery.

• Example 3 (Criminal Law - Vandalism/Property Damage): A group of teenagers decides to spray paint a mural on an abandoned building, believing it to be derelict and unused. They intend to apply paint to the building's surface to create their art. Unbeknownst to them, the building is actually a historically significant landmark undergoing restoration, and their painting causes extensive damage that is costly and difficult to remove. While the teenagers intended the act of spray painting the building, they did not intend to damage a historical site or incur significant restoration costs. Their conscious decision to apply paint to the building, however, demonstrates general intent, which could be sufficient for charges of vandalism or property damage.