Although negligence principles are probably more relevant when addressing day-to-day issues in the business world, intentional tort principles are also important. A crucial starting point is understanding that the very definition of "intent" in the legal realm is much broader than it is in normal conversation. Of course, intent means acting with the desire to cause a certain outcome or consequence. But as the text indicates, knowing that an outcome is "substantially likely" (or, as other texts puts it, acting with "substantial certainty" that an outcome will result) also amounts to acting with intent to cause that outcome.

This means that individuals and companies can be liable for intentional torts (battery, defamation, conversion, etc.) when their actions result in harm to another person, consumers, or the general public even if that individual or company did not act with a desire to cause the harm. What are your thoughts on this broad definition of intent? Does it make sense to hold defendants liable if they genuinely did not desire to cause a harmful outcome but arguably should have known the harmful outcome would result because it was "substantially certain" to occur? Is the gray area created by the idea of the "substantial certainty / substantially likely" measure of intent a good thing or a bad thing? What do you suppose is the reason courts have adopted a broad definition of intent?