Ok, I get what you're saying. I hadn't read a case along those lines, so I didn't know that. So, basically, the transferred intent is tortious regardless of if the original intent was not tortious? And that case wasn't decided on the basis of negligence?
edit: I suppose he wouldn't be liable for battery if it was negligence.
Not quite. I'd probably address it something like this (and remember, you want to discuss all arguments for/against liability for max points). Transferred intent hinges on whether there was an attempted intentional tort on someone else. So you'd start there. Was there a battery on april..go through analysis: No, b/c no offensive contact. Was there an attempt? Yes (go through analysis). But, the harm befell Tommy, and by doctrine of transferred intent, johnny's liable to Tommy as he'd have been liable to April had he hit her (his intent to hit April transferred to tommy)...***UNLESS there is an adequate defense to battery...then you'd analyze whether force used in defense of property was justified.
And, going through the analysis like that covers most of the alternatives out there, thus racking up points. (describing If x, then this outcome, but if y, then different outcome...e.g.: "even though facts satisfy elements of battery through transferred intent, if reasonable use of force under the circumstances for defense of property, not liable. If not reasonable, liable." Then weigh the alternatives and make a conclusion based on what outcome is most likely). Short answer is that Tommy would likely have cause of action for battery, but Johnny potentially has a defense...whether that defense is satisfied determines whether he'll be liable