Legal Definitions - transferred-intent doctrine

The transferred-intent doctrine is a legal principle that holds a person accountable for their harmful intentions, even if the harm is inflicted upon a different individual than the one originally intended. Essentially, if someone intends to commit a wrongful act against one person but accidentally harms a third party instead, the law "transfers" the original intent to the unintended victim. This means the individual can still be held liable for an intentional crime or an intentional civil wrong (known as a tort) against the person who was actually harmed, despite not having specifically targeted them.

• Example 1 (Criminal Context): Sarah is furious with her neighbor, Mark, and decides to throw a rock at his window. She aims carefully, but just as she releases the rock, Mark's young child, Emily, unexpectedly runs past the window and is struck by the rock, sustaining a minor injury.

  Explanation: Under the transferred-intent doctrine, Sarah's intent to assault or batter Mark (by throwing the rock at his property or him) is transferred to Emily. Even though Sarah did not intend to harm Emily, her original harmful intent toward Mark means she could be charged with criminal assault or battery against Emily.

• Example 2 (Civil Tort - Personal Injury): David is playing a prank on his friend, Alex, by trying to pull a chair out from under him just as Alex is about to sit down. However, Alex quickly shifts, and an unsuspecting bystander, Maria, sits down in the now-vacant spot and falls to the floor, injuring her wrist.

  Explanation: David's intent to commit a civil battery (an intentional harmful or offensive touching) against Alex is transferred to Maria. Even though Maria was not the intended target of the prank, she could sue David for civil battery because his original intent to cause an offensive contact was present and resulted in harm to her.

• Example 3 (Civil Tort - Property Damage): A disgruntled former employee, John, intends to slash the tires of his old boss's car in the company parking lot. In the dark, he mistakenly slashes the tires of an identical car parked next to it, which belongs to a different employee, Lisa.

  Explanation: John's intent to damage his boss's property (a tort known as trespass to chattels or conversion) is transferred to Lisa's car. Even though John had no intention of harming Lisa or her property, his original malicious intent to damage a car means he can be held civilly liable to Lisa for the cost of replacing her tires.