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.
Defense of property is one area where I remember the restatement and common law cases differing in some areas.