DENNIS, Justice.

This ease presents the question of whether the worker’s compensation statute, La.R.S. 23:1032 as amended by Act 147 of 1976, constitutionally makes compensation an employee’s exclusive remedy for a work-related injury caused by a co-worker, except for a suit based on an intentional tort. The trial court sustained an exception of no cause of action to plaintiff’s suit against his fellow employee because he alleged that the co-worker was guilty of negligence and not an intentional tort. The court of appeal reversed, holding that, to afford due process and equal protection of the laws, the worker’s compensation statute, as amended, must be interpreted to permit an employee the same remedy in tort against co-employees for negligently caused work-related injuries as he would have if injured by any other tortfeasor. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeal. The worker’s compensation statute was amended by Act 147 of 1976 to preclude suits by an employee to recover for work-related injuries from certain designated persons, including a fellow employee engaged at the time of injury in the normal course and scope of employment, unless his injury resulted from the co-worker’s intentional tortious act. The 1976 amendment does not deprive the plaintiff of due process of law, equal protection of law or access to the judicial process. It was duly adopted, in accordance with the Louisiana constitution.

Plaintiff, Sidney Bazley, a Jefferson Parish garbage worker filed suit against an unidentified co-employee truck driver, the co-employee’s insurer, Sardo Tortorich and Tortorich’s insurer as result of work-related injuries Bazley received when he was struck by Tortorieh’s car while he was mounting the back of a parish garbage truck. In his petition, as supplemented and amended, Bazley alleged that the accident was caused by his co-employee’s intentional acts in operating a garbage truck without a working horn, disregarding mechanical and electrical maintenance standards, failing to keep a lookout, failing to see what he should have seen, failing to stop in a safe place and failing to warn plaintiff of danger. Bazley did not allege, however, that the co-employee desired the consequences of his acts or believed that they were substantially certain to follow his acts.

The trial court sustained an exception of no cause of action to Bazley’s suit against the garbage truck driver on the ground that it constituted a negligence action against a co-employee based on a work-related injury in contravention of the exclusive remedy rule of the Compensation Act. The court of appeal reversed holding that compensation is an employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer but the statute constitutionally cannot be interpreted to bar his suit in tort against other persons. 380 So.2d 727 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980). We granted certiorari. 383 So.2d 1263 (1980).

La.R.S. 23:1032, as amended by Act 147 of 1976, in pertinent part, provides:

“The rights and remedies herein granted to an employee ... on account of an injury . . ., shall be exclusive of all other rights and remedies . . . against his employer, or any principal or any officer, director, stockholder, partner or employee of such employer or principal . . .

*479“Nothing in this Chapter shall affect the liability of the employer, or any officer, director, stockholder, partner or employee of such employer or principal to a fine or penalty under any other statute or the liability, civil or criminal, resulting from an intentional act.

“The immunity from civil liability provided by this Section shall not extend to: 1) any officer, director, stockholder, partner or employee of such employer or principal who is not engaged at the time of the injury in the normal course and scope of his employment; and 2) to the liability of any partner in a partnership which has been formed for the purpose of evading any of the provisions of this Section.”

We are called upon to decide (1) whether La.R.S. 23:1032, as amended, prevents an injured employee from seeking recovery in tort for a work-related injury negligently caused by his co-employee; and, if so, (2) whether the legislature may constitutionally expand the exclusive remedy rule to bar negligence actions by employees against tortfeasors other than employers.

1.

The exclusive remedy rule prevents an employee from seeking recovery in tort for a work-related injury negligently caused by his co-employee.

By Act 147 of 1976 the legislature enlarged the category of employee injuries for which workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy. Formerly, the workers’ compensation statute provided that compensation was an employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer for a compensable injury, leaving him free to pursue other remedies against third persons. The amendment modified the exclusive remedy rule in two respects. First, it provided that for an unintentional injury compensation shall be the exclusive remedy, not only against the employer, but also against any principal, officer, director, stockholder, partner1 or employee of the employer or principal who was engaged at the time of the injury in the normal course and scope of his employment. Second, it provided that for an intentional act resulting in compensable injury the employee may exercise his right under the compensation act and pursue any other remedy available against the employer and other persons under general law.

The principal legislative aim of the 1976 amendment was to broaden the class of defendants to be granted immunity from suits by injured employees in tort or delict. Although the legislative history is meager, accounts indicate that the amendment was enacted to provide employers relief from the cost of furnishing liability insurance to executive officers and other employees. Malone & Johnson, Workers’ Compensation, § 364 in 14 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise 155 (2d ed. 1980); The Work of the Louisiana Legislature for the 1976 Regular Session, 37 La.L.Rev. at 182 (1976). Before the amendment, the absence of a prohibition against tort suits against co-employees allowed injured workers to seek tort recovery from negligent executive officers and their liability insurers. E. g., Canter v. Koehring Co., 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973); Berry v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 240 So.2d 243 (La.App.2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied 256 La. 914, 240 So.2d 374, cert. denied 401 U.S. 1005, 91 S.Ct. 7255, 28 L.Ed.2d 541 (1971). This avenue of recovery provoked considerable critical comment. Comment, 33 La.L.Rev. 325 (1973); Note, 34 La.L.Rev. 141 (1973); Note, 46 Tul.L.Rev. 352 (1971); The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts, 1973-74 Term — Insurance, 35 La.L.Rev. 415, 419 (1975). It was argued that, since the employer’s enterprise would in the end pay for the tort remedy, either directly or through insurance premiums for officers and employees, the result would be a denial to the employer of much of the practical advantage of the exclusive remedy provision. W. Malone, Louisiana Workmen’s Compensation Law and Practice, 1964 Supp. § 366 (1st ed. 1951). It was apparently for this reason that the legislature acted to close this ave*480nue of recovery by adopting Act 147 of 1976.

In abolishing the executive officer suit, however, the legislature provided that the exclusive nature of the compensation remedy does not apply to intentional acts. After considering broader penalties that would have provided double benefits for an employer’s violation of a safety rule, failure to provide a safety device required by law, or gross negligence on the part of a supervisory employee, which caused injury, death or disease, Official Journal of the House of Representatives, June 4, 1976, H.B. 354, p. 20, our legislature chose to impose a sanction for intentional wrongs by making the exclusive remedy rule inapplicable to such acts. Because of the general practice of severely punishing intentional wrongdoers, which is widely accepted in the field of workers’ compensation, because of the received meaning and acceptance of the statutory language, and considering the object of the legislation, we conclude that the words “intentional act” mean the same as “intentional tort” in reference to civil liability.

In drawing a line between intentional and unintentional acts we believe the legislative aim was to make use of the well established division between intentional torts and negligence in common law. See W. Prosser, Law of Torts, §§ 7, et seq. (4th ed. 1971). The lawmakers probably perceived this distinction as entirely consistent with the division in civil law between offenses, which require an intention to injure, and quasi offenses, damages caused without intention to harm. See 2 M. Planiol, §§ 815, 823, 825, 827, Civil Law Treatise (11th ed. La.St.L.Inst. trans. 1959). Universally, harmful conduct is considered more reprehensible if intentional. As Holmes said, “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” Holmes, The Common Law, 3 (1881). There is a definite tendency to impose greater responsibility upon a defendant whose conduct has been intended, to do harm, or morally wrong. W. Prosser, Law of Torts, § 7 (4th ed. 1971); Bauer, The Degree of Moral Fault as Affecting Defendant’s Liability, 1933, 81 U.Pa.L.Rev. 586; Note, 1962, 14 Stan.L.Rev. 362.

Many states provide an employee an election to sue in tort, or a percentage increase in compensation, as the penalty for his intentional injury by the employer or for other forms of employer misconduct. 2A Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation, §§ 69 et seq. (1976). Even in jurisdictions with no statutory penalty for employer misconduct, intentional injury inflicted upon an employee by the employer, its alter ego, or in some instances its supervisory employee, may be made the subject of a common law action for damages on the theory that, in such an action, the employer will not be heard to say his intentional act was an “accidental” injury and so under the exclusive provisions of the compensation act. 2A Larson, §§ 68, et seq. See also, Miller v. Keating, 349 So.2d 265 (La.1977); Le Brane v. Lewis, 292 So.2d 216 (La.1974); Malone & Johnson, Workers’ Compensation, § 365 (2d ed. 1980). Courts in most states imposing such statutory or common law penalties for intentional misconduct have required the commission of a genuine intentional tort and have refused to stretch liability to include negligence, recklessness, or constructive intent. 2A Larson, Workmen’s Compensation, §§ 68.13, 69.20.

Plaintiff ingeniously has proposed, however, that the concept “intentional act” should be equated with “voluntary act.” He interprets “intentional” to mean merely that before the actor acted he directed his mind on his own physical movement and not on the consequences of his act. Under his interpretation an injured employee may sue in tort on any voluntary act setting in motion events leading to his injury regardless of whether the harm appeared likely or was even apparent at all to the actor. For example, in the present case, plaintiff contends he alleged an intentional act triggering his escape from the compensation system when he averred that the defendant garbage truck driver intentionally did not blow his horn to warn plaintiff of an oncoming motorist, although plaintiff con*481cedes that the driver did not intend for harm to come to him. Plaintiffs interpretation is incongruous, not only because it departs from the almost universal practice of differentiating between intentional and unintentional harms, prevalent in most workers’ compensation programs, but also because it ignores the accepted usage of the statutory terms in this state and generally, and his construction would thwart the legislative purpose.

Although the theorists have not always agreed, the words “act” and “intent” now have generally accepted meanings in the fields of tort and criminal law. The word act is used to denote an external manifestation of the actor’s will which produces consequences. There cannot be an act subjecting a person to civil or. criminal liability without volition. Therefore, a contraction of a person’s muscles which is purely a reaction to some outside force, such as a knee jerk or the blinking of the eyelids in defense against an approaching missile, or the convulsive movements of an epileptic, are not acts of that person. Restatement (Second) of Torts, American Law Institute § 2 (1965); La.R.S. 14:8 comment. See also, Prosser, supra, § 8; LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law, § 25 (1972). The meaning of “intent” is that the person who acts either (1) consciously desires the physical result of his act, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct; or (2) knows that that result is substantially certain to follow from his conduct, whatever his desire may be as to that result. Thus, intent has reference to the consequences of an act rather than to the act itself. Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 8; LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law, § 28 (1972); see also, Prosser, supra, § 8.

Our criminal and civil codes manifest legislative acceptance of these received meanings of “act” and “intent.” As the criminal code articles and reporters’ comments make clear, “act” refers to an external manifestation of will which must be voluntary, and “intent” is present when the offender either desires the consequences of his act or when he knew that the consequences were reasonably certain to result from his act. La. R.S. 14:8,10 and Reporter’s Comments. Although the civil code does not contain definitions of the terms, the word “act” is used many times and must be read in light of the code’s underlying civilian concepts. See, e. g., Articles 2815-17. In Article 2315, for example, the word act is used to refer to both offenses and quasi offenses. As we noted above, the difference between these two acts of fault is that offenses require an intention to injure and quasi offenses are committed without intention to harm. 2 M. Planiol, §§ 815, 823, 825, 827. Thus, we see again a basic distinction between intentional and unintentional acts and use of intent in reference to the consequences of the act, rather than the act itself.

Our jurisprudence likewise reflects approval of the general notions of act and intent. This Court as early as 1936, approvingly recited the following: “It seems clear that, in the absence of language expressing a contrary meaning, an ‘act’ involves an exercise of the will. It signifies something done voluntarily.” Heiman v. Pan American Life Ins. Co., 183 La. 1045, 165 So. 195 (1936). Only where the actor entertained a desire to bring about the consequences that followed or where the actor believed that the result was substantially certain to follow has an act been characterized as intentional. See Freeman v. Bell, 366 So.2d 197 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1978, writ denied, 369 So.2d 151 (1979)); Monk v. Veillon, 312 So.2d 377 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1975). See also Langlois v. Eschet, 378 So.2d 189, 190 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979) (word “intended” synonymous with having in mind as an end or aim, implying mind is directed to some definite end), von Dameck v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 361 So.2d 283 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied 362 So.2d 794, 802 (1978) (if person has such a lack of reason, memory, and intelligence that prevents him from comprehending the nature and consequences of his acts, he cannot intentionally inflict injury).

Plaintiff’s suggested interpretation of “intentional act,” equates the term with “voluntary act” and robs it of any reference to the actor’s state of mind concerning the *482consequences of his act. It is most unlikely the legislature intended the words as plaintiff suggests, rather than in their most usual signification and in the sense in which the lawmakers have used them in other legislation.

Furthermore, plaintiff’s interpretation would thwart the legislative objective of broadening the class of defendants to be granted tort immunity. Instead, Act 147 of 1976 would have the reverse effect of restricting the exclusive remedy rule to claims of employees injured without any other person’s fault. Any employee could bring suit and recover under Article 2315 by pleading and proving that his injury was negligently caused by the voluntary conduct of his employer or co-employee. Since there cannot be an act subjecting a person to liability for negligence without volition, the exclusive remedy rule as interpreted by the plaintiff would abolish all tort immunity for employers and co-employees. In the absence of a clearer expression of legislative design to curtail drastically the workers’ compensation system, we cannot attribute such aims to the lawmakers.

For these reasons, we construe the legislation under review as providing that the exclusive remedy rule shall be inapplicable to intentional torts or offenses. The meaning of intent in this context is that the defendant either desired to bring about the physical results of his act or believed they were substantially certain to follow from what he did. Several courts of appeal have stated the two prongs of the definition in the conjunctive, thus requiring a plaintiff to prove, in order to recover, that the defendant desired the physical results of his act in every case. Waldrop v. Vistron Corp., 391 So.2d 1274 (La.App.1980); McGuire v. Honeycutt, 387 So.2d 674 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co., 385 So.2d 878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1980); Courtney v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 385 So.2d 391 (La.App. 1st Cir.) writ denied 386 So.2d 359 (La.1980); Bourgoyne v. City of Baton Rouge, 380 So.2d 131 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied 382 So.2d 164 (1980); Frazier v. Woodward, 378 So.2d 209 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979); Johnson v. Narcisse, 373 So.2d 207 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979); Tobin v. Jacobson, 369 So.2d 1161 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1979); Guidry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 359 So.2d 637 (La.App. 1st Cir.) writ denied, 362 So.2d 578 (La.1978). Intent is not, however, limited to consequences which are desired. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he is treated by the. law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 8A, Comment; Prosser, supra, § 8.

Applying the statute to the facts set forth in plaintiff’s petition, we conclude that the petition fails to state a cause of action in intentional tort or offense. The pleadings do not express or imply that the co-employee garbage truck driver desired the consequences of his acts or omissions or that he believed the consequences were substantially certain to result from them.

2.

The exclusive remedy rule does not violate plaintiff’s rights to substantive due process and equal protection of the laws or other constitutional safeguards.

Bazley argues that the exclusive remedy rule violates several constitutional safeguards. First, he contends that the guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection are offended by arbitrary statutory classifications having no rational purpose which deprive some but not all employees injured by the negligence of another person of their tort remedies. Secondly, he contends for the same reason that he has been deprived of his state constitutional right to access to the courts. Finally, he urges us to declare Act 147 of 1976 unconstitutional because it was passed without a title indicative of its object.

The constitutions of the United States and this state impose no obligation on the legislature to provide injured employees with a particular kind of remedy for loss of income and medical expenses. But when a legislature acts to alleviate *483some of the suffering and hardships of industrial accidents, the manner in which it provides for relief is subject to constitutional limitations. Bazley’s claim is that the legislature must accord equal treatment to all employees with regard to work-related tort claims, and may not evidence a policy preference by allowing only those employees injured by strangers to the employer’s enterprise to pursue their claims outside the compensation system. This challenge to the classifications established by the compensation statute presents a question arising under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Louisiana constitution.

The basic framework of analysis of such a claim is well settled. We must decide, first, whether the legislation operates to the disadvantage of some suspect class or impinges on a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution, thereby requiring strict judicial scrutiny. If not, the legislative scheme must still be examined to determine whether it rationally furthers some legitimate, articulated state purpose and therefore does not constitute an invidious discrimination. Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 97 S.Ct. 2376, 53 L.Ed.2d 484 (1977); San Antonio School District v. Rodriguiz, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973); Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 2, 366 So.2d 1381, 1387-88 (La.1978); Everett v. Goldman, 359 So.2d 1256 (La.1978); Succession of Robins, 349 So.2d 276 (La.1977).

This case involves no suspect class. An injured employee entitled to compensation but seeking more complete recovery by tort suit does not come within the limited category of disadvantaged classes so recognized by the Supreme Court. The statute does not classify persons on the basis of race, alienage, national origin, or discriminate against discrete and insular minorities. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971); United States v. Carolene Product Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n. 4, 58 S.Ct. 778, 783 n. 4, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938).

Nor does the statute limit the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. The list of rights which have been found to be fundamental may be divided as follows: Freedom of expression and association, NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S.Ct. 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 (1958); Right to vote and participate in the electoral process, Harper v. Virginia Board of Election, 383 U.S. 663, 89 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966); Right to interstate travel, Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Right to fairness in the criminal process, e. g., Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 92 S.Ct. 410, 30 L.Ed.2d 372 (1971); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Right to fairness in procedures concerning governmental deprivations of life, liberty or property, e. g., Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Right to privacy, e. g., Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925). See generally, Nowak, Rotunda & Young, Constitutional Law, 418 (1978). This list is not permanently exhaustive, but the right Bazley seeks to exercise is not within these fundamental categories.

As with the use of the equal protection clauses, in review of statutes for substantive due process, cases involving fundamental civil rights are to be distinguished from cases involving economic and social welfare legislation. In a case merely involving general police power or social welfare legislation such as our workers’ compensation statute, the test of substantive due process is whether the regulation is reasonable in relation to the goal to be attained and is adopted in the interest of the community as a whole. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703 (1937); Everett v. Goldman, 359 So.2d 1256 (La.1978).

Applying these principles, we conclude that the amended exclusive remedy rule of our workers’ compensation statute can be *484sustained under the less demanding test of rationality that applies in the absence of a suspect classification or the impingement of a fundamental right. The legitimate articulated state purpose served by the workers’ compensation statute “will disclose that its purpose is primarily to ‘abolish the common-law system relating to injuries to employees as inadequate to meet modern conditions and conceptions of moral obligations, and substitute therefor a system based on a high conception of man’s obligation to his fellow man * * *.’ By that system the loss incurred as a result of the employee’s injury is recognized ‘as an element of the cost of production to be charged to the industry, rather than to the individual employer, and liquidated in the steps ending with consumption, so that the burden is finally borne by the community in general. * * ’” Puchner v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., 198 La. 922, 931, 5 So.2d 288 (1941); see also, 1 Larson, Workers’ Compensation, § 1. The exclusive remedy rule extension is reasonable in relation to this goal and rationally furthers it. Although it is debatable and sharply contested, defendants reasonably contend that the 1976 amendment promotes the ends of the Act by relieving employers of the burden of liability insurance premiums for their officers and employees, thereby providing a more effective mechanism for providing cash-wage benefits and medical cost to victims of work-connected injuries, and for placing the cost of these injuries ultimately on the consumer. See, 1 Larson, Workers’ Compensation, § 1, and that it will promote peace and harmony among employees by providing them with immunity from co-workers’ tort claims. See 2A Larson, Workers’ Compensation, § 72.20.

Bazley contends that the classifications of the exclusive remedy rule which grant tort immunity to executive officers, employees, and other persons related to the employer’s enterprise are not rationally related to the legislative purpose. He argues that each employer in every instance will not be induced or compelled by collective bargaining or competition for management personnel to purchase liability insurance for _the individuals granted immunity. However, in the area of economics and social welfare, a legislature does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some reasonable basis, it does not offend the constitution simply because the classification is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. Lindsley v. National Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369, 377 (1911). “The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.” Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70, 33 S.Ct. 441, 57 L.Ed. 730, 734 (1913). “A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.” McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426, 81 S.Ct. 1101, 1105, 6 L.Ed.2d 393, 399 (1961); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970).

We do not decide that the legislature’s formulation of the exclusive remedy rule is wise, that it best fulfills the relevant social and economic objectives that Louisiana might ideally espouse, or that a more just and humane system could not be devised.2 Conflicting claims of morality and intelligence are raised by opponents and proponents of almost every measure, certainly including the one before us. But the diffi-Éult economic and social problems presented y workers’ compensation programs cannot yroperly be resolved by this Court. Cf. Dandridge v. Williams, supra, 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491. Our federal and state constitutions may impose certain procedural safeguards upon systems of workmen’s compensation, but they do not *485empower this Court to second-guess legislators who are charged with the heavy responsibility of regulating the social obligations that exist between the employee, the employer, and the public. Accordingly, we conclude that Bazley’s equal protection and due process claims are without merit.

The state constitutional guarantee of access to courts is Article 1, § 22 of the Louisiana Constitution, which reads:

“All courts shall be open, and every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered without denial, partiality, or unreasonable delay, for injury to him and his person, property, reputation, or other rights.”

This provision, like the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, protects an individual’s access to the judicial process. Where access to the judicial process is not essential to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right, the legislature is free to allocate access to the judicial machinery on any system or classification which is not totally arbitrary. Everett v. Goldman, 359 So.2d 1256 (La.1978); see Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656, 93 S.Ct. 1172, 35 L.Ed.2d 572 (1973); United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 93 S.Ct. 631, 34 L.Ed.2d 626 (1973); Jones v. Union Guano Co., 264 U.S. 171, 44 S.Ct. 280, 68 L.Ed. 623 (1924). The legislation under review does not substantially alter a claimant’s access to the judicial process, and, therefore, it does not contravene the access to courts guarantee of our state constitution. Bazley’s complaints that he has been denied the right to sue in tort for full recovery for his injuries, and that he is discriminated against with respect to other plaintiffs who may bring such suits, actually raise the same substantive due process and equal protection issues which we have already resolved. See also Perez v. Continental Casualty Co., 367 So.2d 1284 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1979); Branch v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 370 So.2d 1270 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1979).

Finally, Bazley contends that Act 147 of 1976 was enacted in contravention of Article 3, § 15(A) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 which, in pertinent part, provides:

“Every bill ... shall be confined to one object. Every bill shall contain a brief title indicative of its object.”

The purpose of the one-object requirement is to restrict a legislative act so that a legislator will not have to consider the validity of two unrelated objects in deciding how to vote on a bill. State v. Cooper, 382 So.2d 963 (La.1980); State v. Dooley, 261 La. 295, 259 So.2d 329 (1972). If all the parts of a statute have a natural connection and reasonably relate, directly or indirectly, to one general and legitimate subject of legislation, the statute is not considered as being open to the objection of plurality, no matter how extensively it deals with the details looking to the accomplishment of the main legislative purpose. State v. Cooper, supra; Wall v. Close, 203 La. 345, 15 So.2d 19 (1943).

The purpose of the indicative title requirement is to give the legislature and the public fair notice of the scope of the legislation. The requirement is designed to defeat deceitful practices of misleading the legislature into the passage of provisions not indicated by the title of the bill. State v. Welkner, 259 La. 815, 253 So.2d 192 (1971).

Act 147 of 1976 is confined to one object because all of its parts have a natural connection and reasonably relate to one general and legitimate subject of legislation, the expansion of the exclusive remedy rule and the concomitant elimination of some third party actions.

The title of Act 147 of 1976 provides that it is an act “[t]o amend and reenact sections 1032 and 1101 of Title 23 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950 relative to workmen’s compensation, to provide with respect to the exclusive nature of the compensation remedy in cases of injury or compensable sickness or disease and to provide with respect to third party actions and to otherwise provide with respect thereto.” The title is indicative of the legislative object because it gives the public fair notice of the scope of the legislation.

*486We find meritless Bazley’s contention that Act 147 of 1976 is not germane to the object of the original compensation act, Act 20 of 1914, the title of which provides as follows:

“An act prescribing the liability of an employer to make compensation for injuries received by an employee in performing services arising out of and incidental to his employment in the course of his employer’s trade, business or occupation in certain trades, business or occupations, abolishing in certain cases the defenses of assumption of risk, contributory negligence and negligence of a fellow servant in actions for personal injury and death, establishing a schedule of compensation, regulating procedure for the determination of liability and compensation thereunder and providing for methods for payments of compensation thereunder.”

It is not fatal to the legislation that the title of the original act refers only to the employer’s liability and not to the liability of third persons. It is not the purpose of the constitution to require that the title be an index to the contents of the act, or that every end and means convenient or necessary for the accomplishment of the general object of the act be set out at length in the title, but it is deemed sufficient, under the constitution, that the act contain but one object and that the object be fairly stated, although it be expressed in general terms, in the title of the act. All things proper or necessary to carry out the general object, so stated in the title, are deemed to be within the scope of the title. State v. Welkner, 259 La. 815, 253 So.2d 192 (1972); Southern Hide Co. v. Best, 145 So. 682, 176 La. 347 (1933).

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, the judgment of the trial court is reinstated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WILKINS, Associate Chief Justice:

¶ 1 Tracy and Robert Wagner seek review of the court of appeals’ ruling that the trial court properly granted a rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing their suit against the State. The Wagners’ suit, which sought recovery for injuries Mrs. Wagner sustained when a mentally handicapped man attacked her while he was in the custody of state employees, was dismissed at the trial court, and affirmed at the court of appeals, on the ground that the attack constituted a battery, a tort for which the State has retained immunity from suit. The Wagners then petitioned this court for certiorari, which we granted. We now affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 When reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion, we recite the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, though there is no dispute in this case as to the facts. Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 233 (Utah 1993).

¶ 3 Tracy Wagner was standing in a customer service line at a K-Mart store in American Fork, Utah, when she was suddenly and inexplicably attacked from behind. The Wagners’ alleged that Sam Giese, a mentally disabled patient of the Utah State Development Center (“USDC”), “became violent, took [Mrs. Wagner] by the head and hair, threw her to the ground, and otherwise acted in such a way as to cause serious bodily injury to her.”

¶ 4 USDC employees had accompanied Mr. Giese to K-Mart as part of his treatment program and had remained in K-Mart to supervise him. While this particular episode of violence was sudden, it was not altogether unpredictable. Mr. Giese had a history of violent conduct and presented a potential danger to the public if not properly supervised.

¶ 5 Mrs. Wagner and her husband subsequently filed a complaint against USDC and the Utah Department of Human Services, the state agency under which USDC operates, for failing to “properly supervise the activity of’ Mr. Giese while he was in its care. Because the defendants to this matter are all governmental entities, they moved to dismiss the complaint under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that Mrs. Wagner’s injuries arose out of a battery, a tort for which the government is immune from suit. Thus, under the Governmental Immunity Act, Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10(2) (Utah 1997) (repealed 2004), the defendants could not be held liable for injuries arising out of the battery here. The district court agreed with the government and dismissed the Wagners’ complaint, holding that because Giese initiated a contact with “deliberate” intent, his attack constituted a battery and the government was immune under the statute.

¶ 6 The Wagners appealed the decision to the court of appeals, arguing that the intentional tort of battery requires proof of both an intent to make a contact and an intent to cause harm thereby, and because Mr. Giese was mentally incompetent to formulate the intent to cause harm, his attack could not constitute a battery as a matter of law. The defendants, on the other hand, maintained that a person need only intend to make a harmful or offensive contact in order for that contact to constitute a battery upon another. A person need not intend to cause harm or appreciate that his contact will cause harm so *602long as he intends to make a contact, and that contact is harmful.

¶ 7 Both parties filed briefs with the court of appeals, but oral argument was not heard on the matter. Instead, the court issued a memorandum opinion affirming the district court’s order of dismissal. Wagner v. Utah Dep’t of Human Servs., No. 20030106-CA, 2004 WL 530728, *8, 2004 Utah App. LEXIS 282, at *8 (Utah Ct.App. Mar.18, 2004) (mem.). The court of appeals reasoned that Mr. Giese’s attack on Mrs. Wagner constituted a battery under Utah jurisprudence interpreting the Governmental Immunity Act. Id., 2004 WL 530728, *1, at *5 The court distinguished the case at bar from the case the Wagners cited in support of their argument, finding that Mr. Giese’s attack, unlike the incident involved in the cited case, “ ‘creatfed] a substantial certainty [that] harm’ ” would arise out of the contact. Id., 2004 WL 530728, *2, at *6 (quoting Matheson v. Pearson, 619 P.2d 321, 323 (Utah 1980)).

¶ 8 Looking to outside case law as well, the court of appeals found that the decisions reached in other jurisdictions supported its conclusion that the resolution of the issue turned not on whether the perpetrator of the attack intended to cause harm, but rather upon “ ‘whether the injury was perpetrated deliberately or accidentally.’ ” Id. at *7 (quoting Miele v. United States, 800 F.2d 50, 52 (2d Cir.1986)). The court of appeals joined the courts of other jurisdictions, both state and federal, in declining to incorporate a requirement that the perpetrator have a certain mental state at the moment of the attack in order for that attack to constitute a battery. The Wagners appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78-2-2(3)(a) (2002).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9 When reviewing a court of appeals decision affirming a grant of a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “we review the decisions of the court of appeals rather than that of the trial court ... for correctness.” Taghipour v. Jerez, 2002 UT 74, ¶ 8, 52 P.3d 1252. Because we are reviewing a rule 12(b)(6) motion, we must “accept the material allegations in the complaint as true and interpret those facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the plaintiff as the non-moving party.” Russell Packard Dev. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 3, 108 P.3d 741. We will affirm the court of appeals’ dismissal of the case only if, after granting such deference to the Wagners’ factual presentation, we still find that they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

ANALYSIS

I. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT

¶ 10 In interpreting any statute, rules of statutory construction require the court to “first look[ ] to the statute’s plain language, and give effect to the plain language unless the language is ambiguous.” Blackner v. State, 2002 UT 44, ¶ 12, 48 P.3d 949. At the time of the incident in this case, the Governmental Immunity Act read as follows:

Immunity from suit of all governmental entities is waived for injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of an employee committed within the scope of employment except if the injury arises out of ...:

(2) assault, battery, [or] false imprisonment. ...

Utah Code Ann. § 63-30-10(2) (Utah 1997) (repealed 2004).

¶ 11 This court has previously held in governmental immunity cases that the State is immunized against a negligence action if the action arises out of an assault or battery. Tiede v. State, 915 P.2d 500, 502-03 (Utah 1996) (holding the State immune from suit for negligence in the shooting deaths of two and the assault and battery upon three others under the assault and battery exception to the immunity waiver); Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 241 (Utah 1993) (county immune from suit under the battery exception where a mentally ill patient at a county facility stabbed a child); Ledfors v. Emery County Sch. Dist., 849 P.2d 1162, 1166 (Utah 1993) (school district immune from suit under the battery exception for failing to properly supervise high school stu*603dents where those studénts severely beat another student during a physical education class).

¶ 12 Utah courts make three inquiries to determine whether the government is immune from suit under the Governmental Immunity Act. First, courts must ascertain whether the activity was a governmental function and thereby entitled to blanket immunity under the Act. Second, if the activity constituted a governmental function, courts must then look to see whether the State has waived immunity under another section of the Act. Finally, courts must determine whether there is an exception to the waiver of immunity that retains immunity against suit for the cause of action in the particular case. Taylor v. Ogden City Sch. Dist., 927 P.2d 159, 162 (Utah 1996).

¶ 13 Both sides concede that “the first two factors do not shield the State” from suit. Wagner v. State, No. 20030106-CA, 2004 WL 530728, *1, 2004 Utah App. LEXIS 282, *4. The State does argue, however, that the third inquiry requires that the suit against the State be dismissed under the Governmental Immunity Act because Mr. Giese’s attack constituted a battery, an exception to the waiver of immunity under former section 63-30-10(2).

¶ 14 The Wagners argue that Mr. Giese’s attack could not legally constitute a battery because that intentional tort requires the actor to intend harm or offense through his deliberate contact, an intent Mr. Giese was mentally incompetent to form. The State, on the other hand, argues that the only intent required under the statute is simply the intent to make a contact. The contact must be harmful or offensive by law, but the actor need not intend harm so long as he intended contact.

¶ 15 The outcome of this ease, then, turns upon which interpretation of the definition of battery is correct. Accordingly, we turn our attention now to the law of battery as defined in the Restatement.

II. THE RESTATEMENT DEFINITION OF BATTERY

¶ 16 While there is some variation among the definitions of the tort of battery, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 8, at 33-34 (W. Page Keeton et al. eds., 5th ed.1984) (hereinafter Prosser), Utah has adopted the Second Restatement of Torts to define the elements of this intentional tort, including the element of intent. Tiede v. State, 915 P.2d 500, 503 n. 3. The Restatement represents a “concept [of the law] consistent with the most common usage in judicial opinions in tort cases.” Prosser, supra, § 8, at 34. The Restatement reads:

An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if

(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and

(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1965).

¶ 17 The only point of dispute in this case is whether the language of the Restatement requires Mr. Giese to have intended not only to make physical contact with Mrs. Wagner, which the Wagners concede he did, but also to have intended the contact to be harmful or offensive. In other words, is a battery committed only when the actor intends for his contact to harm or offend, or is it sufficient that the actor deliberately make physical contact, which contact is harmful or offensive by law? Determining the answer requires a careful dissection of the elements of battery and the meaning of intent.

¶ 18 We conclude that the plain language of the Restatement, the comments to the Restatement, Prosser and Keeton’s exhaustive explanation of the meaning of intent as described in the Restatement, and the majority of case law on the subject in all jurisdictions including Utah, compels us to agree with the State that only intent to make contact is necessary.

¶ 19 In order for a contact to constitute a battery at civil law, two elements must be satisfied. First, the contact must have been deliberate. Second, the contact must have been harmful or offensive at law. We hold that the actor need not intend that his contact be harmful or offensive in order *604to commit a battery so long as he deliberately made the contact and so long as that contact satisfies our legal test for what is harmful or offensive.

¶ 20 We first address the intent element of battery to explain our holding. Next, we discuss how the limited legal nature of harmful or offensive contact restricts the types of contacts for which actors may be potentially liable.

A. Legal Intent to Commit a Battery

¶21 Prosser described intent as “one of the most often misunderstood legal concepts.” Prosser, supra, § 8, at 33. Because intent is also “one of the most basic, organizing concepts of legal thinking,” id., it is crucial that the term is properly defined and understood. We begin our analysis with the language in the Restatement itself.

¶ 22 The Restatement defines a battery as having occurred where “[an actor] acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13. The comments to the definition of battery refer the reader to the definition of intent in section 8A. Id. § 13 cmt. c. Section 8A reads:

The word “intent” is used throughout the Restatement of this Subject to denote that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.

Id. § 8A (emphasis added).

¶ 23 Although this language might not immediately seem to further inform our analysis, the comments to this section do illustrate the difference between an intentional act and an unintentional one: the existence of intent as to the contact that results from the act. Because much of the confusion surrounding the intent element required in an intentional tort arises from erroneously conflating the act with the consequence intended, we must clarify these basic terms as they are used in our law before we analyze the legal significance of intent as to an act versus intent as to the consequences of that act.

¶ 24 Section 2 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts defines the term “act” as “an external manifestation of the actor’s will and does not include any of its results, even the most direct, immediate, and intended.” Id. § 2. To illustrate this point, the comments clarify that when an actor points a pistol at another person and pulls the trigger, the act is the pulling of the trigger. Id. at cmt. c. The consequence of that act is the “impingement of the bullet upon the other’s person.” Id. It would be improper to describe the act as “the shooting,” since the shooting is actually the conflation of the act with the consequence. For another example, the act that has taken place when one intentionally strikes another with his fist “is only the movement of the actor’s hand and not the contact with the others body immediately established.” Id. Thus, presuming that the movement was voluntary rather than spastic, whether an actor has committed an intentional or negligent contact with another, and thus a tort sounding in battery or negligence, depends not upon whether he intended to move his hand, but upon whether he intended to make contact thereby.

¶25 The example the Restatement sets forth to illustrate this point is that of an actor firing a gun into the Mojave Desert. Restatement (Second of Torts) § 8A cmt. a. In both accidental and intentional shootings, the actor intended to pull the trigger. Id. Battery liability, rather than liability sounding in negligence, will attach only when the actor pulled the trigger in order to shoot another person, or knowing that it was substantially likely that pulling the trigger would lead to that result. Id. § 8A cmts. a & b. An actor who intentionally fires a bullet, but who does not realize that the bullet would make contact with another person, as when “the bullet hits a person who is present in the desert without the actor’s knowledge,” is not liable for an intentional tort. Id.

¶ 26 A hunter, for example, may intentionally fire his gun in an attempt to shoot a bird, but may accidentally shoot a person whom he had no reason to know was in the vicinity. He intended his act, pulling the trigger, but not the contact between his bullet and the body of another that resulted from that act. Thus, he intended the act but not the consequence. It is the consequential contact with the other person that the actor must either *605intend or be substantially certain would result, not the act — pulling the trigger — itself. He is therefore not liable for an intentional tort because his intentional act resulted in an unintended contact. On the other hand, the actor is liable for an intentional tort if he pulled the trigger intending that the bullet released thereby would strike someone, or knowing that it was substantially likely to strike someone as a result of his act. Id. at emts. a & b.

¶ 27 Can an actor who acknowledges that he intentionally pulled the trigger, and did so with the intent that the bullet make contact with the person of another, defeat a battery charge if he can show that he did so only as a joke, or did not intend that the contact between the bullet and the body of the person would cause harm or offense to that person? The Wagners argue that such a showing would provide a full defense to a battery charge because the actor lacked the necessary intent to harm.

¶ 28 We agree with the Wagners that not all intentional contacts are actionable as batteries, and that the contact must be harmful or offensive in order to be actionable. We do not agree, however, that, under our civil law, the actor must appreciate that his act is harmful or offensive in order for his contact to constitute a battery. Before we resort to case law to interpret the language and application of our battery law, we can simply turn first to the plain language of the law itself for a clear refutation of the Wagners’ theory.

¶29 The plain language of the comments makes clear that the only intent required to commit a battery is the intent to make a contact, not an intent to harm, injure, or offend through that contact. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13. So long as the actor intended the contact, “it is immaterial that the actor is not inspired by any personal hostility to the other, or a desire to injure him.” Id. § 13 cmt. c. The actor will be liable for battery even if he honestly but “erroneously believe[d] that ... the other has, in fact, consented to [the contact].” Id. In fact, even a healing contact motivated by a helpful intent, as in an act of medical assistance, is actionable as a battery if the actor did not in fact have permission to make the contact. Id. The linchpin to liability for battery is not a guilty mind, but rather an intent to make a contact the law forbids. The actor need not appreciate that his contact is forbidden; he need only intend the contact, and the contact must,.in fact, be forbidden.

¶ 30 The Restatement comments illustrate this principle using two examples. In the first, an actor playing a good-natured practical joke, under the mistaken belief that he has his victim’s consent to make the contact, has committed a battery. Id. In the second example, the healing contact of a physician, acting with helpful intent but against the patient’s wishes, constituted a battery. Id. The fact that the procedure preserved the patient’s life does not change the result. Id.; see, e.g., Meyers v. Epstein, 232 F.Supp.2d 192, 198 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (holding that “the only intent necessary to support a claim of battery is simply the intent to make contact” and a physician who did not have specific permission to do so has committed a battery); Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 104 N.W. 12, 16 (1905), overruled on other grounds by Genzel v. Halvorson, 248 Minn. 527, 80 N.W.2d 854 (1957) (holding that a physician committed a battery even though he acted with helpful intent because he did not have the patient’s consent to perform surgery on her right ear instead of her left); Mink v. Univ. of Chicago, 460 F.Supp. 713, 718 (N.D.Ill.1978) (holding for plaintiffs in their negligence action against physicians because “[t]he requisite element of intent is ... met, since the plaintiffs need show only an intent to bring about the contact; an intent to do harm is not essential to the action.”).

¶31 If a physician who has performed a life-saving act of assistance upon an uneon-senting patient with the hope of making that patient whole is liable for battery under the express terms of the Restatement, and a practical joker who makes a contact which he thinks will be taken as a joke or to which he thinks his victim has actually given consent is likewise liable, we cannot then say that other actors must intend harm through their deliberate contact in order to perfect a battery. It is beyond argument that the Restatement itself requires neither a “desire to injure” nor a realization that the contact is injurious or *606offensive. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13. Instead, the actor need only intend the contact itself, and that contact must fit the legal definition of harmful or offensive.

¶ 32 Prosser echoed the Restatement when he clarified that “[t]he intent with which tort liability is concerned is not necessarily a hostile intent, or a desire to do harm. Rather, it is an intent to bring about a result which will invade the interests of another in a way that the law forbids.” Prosser, supra, § 8, at 36. While it may be argued that this statement means that the actor must intend that the contact be forbidden, all ambiguity on the point is eviscerated by Prosser’s next comment, in which he lists as one type of intentional tort the act of “intentionally invading the rights of another under a mistaken belief of committing no wrong.” Id. § 8, at 37.

¶ 33 Though Prosser recognizes that the plaintiff will often recover to the greatest extent “where the [defendant’s] motive is a malevolent desire to do harm,” he nonetheless ascribes the malevolence to motive, not intent, and labels the less culpable act of innocent invasion of another’s rights as an intentional invasion. Id. These comments only underscore the point repeated throughout both the Restatement and Prosser’s analysis that the only intent required is the intent to make a contact to which the recipient has not consented, and the actor need not appreciate that the victim has not consented.

¶ 34 In Prosser’s analysis of battery itself, he states that, in order for the contact to constitute a battery, “[t]he act must cause, and must be intended to cause, an unpermit-ted contact.” Id. § 9, at 41. In discussing the difference between battery and mere negligence, he focused upon “the risk that contact will result” from the act, not the risk that harm would result from the contact. Id. Yet, if battery required an intent to harm or offend, or to realize that the contact was harmful or offensive or otherwise unpermit-ted, the proper focus of a discussion distinguishing between negligent and intentional conduct would be upon the risk that harm or offense would result from the contact. Instead, the focus was upon whether the contact itself, not the harm resulting therefrom, was intended or resulted from mere inadvertence.

¶ 35 The Wagners’ argument that an actor lacks intent to commit a battery where he deliberately makes physical contact that is harmful or offensive so long as he does not realize his contact is harmful or offensive is simply in direct conflict with the commentaries in the Restatement itself and other commentaries on the law. As Prosser states, “a defendant may be liable [for battery] when intending only a joke, or even a compliment, as where an unappreciated kiss is bestowed without consent, or a misguided effort is made to render assistance.” Id. § 9, 41-42.

¶ 36 The Wagners’ theory is also in conflict with the majority of case law on the subject in both federal and state courts, including Utah. See, e.g., 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895J; id. § 238B; Meyers v. Epstein, 232 F.Supp.2d 192, 198 (S.N.D.Y.2002); Cheney v. Studstrup, 32 F.Supp.2d 1278, 1284 & n. 6 (D.Utah 1998); Delahanty v. Hinckley, 799 F.Supp. 184, 187 (D.D.C.1992); Williams v. Kearbey, 13 Kan.App.2d 564, 775 P.2d 670, 673-74 (1989); Polmatier v. Russ, 206 Conn. 229, 537 A.2d 468, 469-70 (1988). While there is a dearth of case law on this precise subject from Utah state courts, our eases that do touch upon the intent element of battery generally support the majority rule to which we subscribe in this decision.

¶ 37 For instance, in Wright v. University of Utah, 876 P.2d 380, 387 (Utah Ct.App.1994), cert. denied, 883 P.2d 1359 (Utah 1994), the court of appeals rejected Mrs. Wright’s argument that the autistic university employee who struck her could not have committed a battery because he lacked the mental capacity to form the requisite intent. The court discussed her argument in the context of explaining why it denied her request to amend her complaint to include a pure negligence charge, justifying its denial on the basis that “a party is not entitled to file an amended complaint when the new claim is legally insufficient or futile.” Wright, 876 P.2d at 387.

¶38 Describing Wright’s attempt to circumvent the governmental immunity statute by recasting her claim as one sounding in *607negligence rather than battery as “fruitless, albeit creative,” the court looked to analogous federal cases to dismantle her argument. Id. at 386-87. In accordance with the federal courts’ analysis of the parallel provision in the federal immunity statute, Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h) (2000), the court of appeals concluded that “[njoth-ing in the Act or in our case law indicates that the distinction Wright champions was contemplated by the legislature to determine whether immunity exists under section 63-30-10(2). The focus is on the result, not the circumstances leading thereto.” Wright, 876 P.2d at 387.

¶ 39 We have also implicitly held that mental capacity is not relevant to a liability determination in other cases involving civil battery. In Higgins v. Salt Lake County, 855 P.2d 231, 233 (Utah 1993), the plaintiffs sued Salt Lake County for negligently supervising a mental patient who attacked and repeatedly stabbed their ten-year-old daughter. Though the Higginses did not raise the argument that the attacker’s insanity adjudication meant that her attack could not constitute a battery, we found that the battery exception applied. Id. at 240. The patient’s schizophrenia and marginal intelligence did not persuade us that her actions could not amount to a battery for lack of requisite intent. Id. at 241.

¶ 40 The Wagners correctly point out that our decision in Matheson v. Pearson, 619 P.2d 321 (Utah 1980), does not conform to the rule we have applied here. In Matheson, a maintenance man sustained injuries when a student threw a piece of candy from an open window at him, striking him in the back. Id. at 321-22. The only way the injured plaintiff could recover against the student for his injuries was if the act sounded in negligence rather than battery, since the statute of limitations on battery had already run by the time the case was filed. Id. at 322. We held that battery requires an intent to harm, not just an intent to make contact, and that the adolescent prank did not involve the requisite intent. Id. at 322-23. Thus, the injured maintenance man was able to proceed with his suit on a theory of negligence.

¶ 41 The Matheson case, however, was decided before we expressly adopted the Restatement definition of battery, and it has been superceded by more recent case law on the subject of intent. The reasoning promulgated in Matheson directly contradicts the very example of battery the Restatement provided. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 cmt. c. (“One who plays dangerous practical jokes on others takes the risk that his victims may not appreciate the humor of his conduct....”). Matheson is not a correct interpretation of the Restatement on battery and it is hereby overruled. Instead, we ratify the position taken by the majority of federal and state courts in rejecting the argument that the actor must intend harm or offense through his contact in order for that contact to constitute a battery.

¶42 The discussion in Miele v. United States, 800 F.2d 50 (2d Cir.1986), is informative on this point. There, the Second Circuit held that the family of a child blinded and disfigured when an insane AWOL soldier attacked him with sulphuric acid was barred by the immunity doctrine from recovering against the government, despite the family’s argument that the insane soldier could not form the requisite intent to commit a battery. The court held that the attacker’s mental capacity was irrelevant to the question of whether the actor committed a battery for two reasons.

¶ 43 First, the government’s fault in the attack “does not change depending upon whether the aggressor was sane or insane at the time.” Id. at 52. “While an insane employee may or may not be less culpable personally for such attacks, the question of whether the injury was perpetrated deliberately or accidentally does not depend upon the employee’s sanity.” Id. Second, under the common law, “one who suffers from deficient mental capacity is not immune from tort liability solely for that reason.” Id. at 53, (citing W.L. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 135 (4th ed.1971)). The linchpin of an action for battery, then, is simply “the intent to make contact.” Id. Thus, the Mieles’ cause of action against the government arose out of a battery, despite the attacker’s mental incompetency.

*608¶ 44 Though the majority rule is not without its critics, “the fact remains that ‘courts in this country almost invariably say in the broadest terms that an insane person is liable for his torts.’ ” Delahanty, 799 F.Supp. at 187 (quoting Williams, 775 P.2d at 673). Individuals such as Mr. Giese are included in this category of liable actors because “ ‘mental deficiency does not relieve [them] from liability for conduct which does not conform to the standard of a reasonable man under like circumstances.’ ” Polmatier, 537 A.2d at 470 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 283B). Indeed, the Restatement provides that, for the sane but mentally deficient, “no allowance is made, and the actor is held to the standard of conduct of a reasonable man who is not mentally deficient, even though it is in fact beyond his capacity to conform to it.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 283B cmt. c.

¶ 45 Otherwise, the law would err on the side of protecting actors who voluntarily make physical contacts with other people, producing injury or offense, from liability for their deliberate action. The result would be that the victims who were subjected to a harmful or offensive physical contact are at the mercy of those who deliberately come into contact with them, and must bear the costs of the injuries inflicted thereby. The practical consequences of such an interpretation would turn the law of our civil liability on its head.

¶46 For example, a man who decides to flatter a woman he spots in a crowd with an unpetitioned-for kiss, one of the examples of battery Prosser provides, Prosser, supra, § 9, at 41-42, would find no objection under the Wagners’ proposed rule so long as his intentional contact was initiated with no intent to injure or offend. He would be held civilly liable for his conduct only if he intended to harm or offend her through his kiss. A woman in such circumstances would not enjoy the presumption of the law in favor of preserving her bodily integrity; instead, her right to be free from physical contact with strangers would depend upon whether she could prove that the stranger hoped to harm or offend her through his contact. So long as he could show that he meant only flattery and the communication of positive feelings towards her in stroking her, kissing her, or hugging her, she must be subjected to it and will find no protection for her bodily integrity in our civil law.

¶ 47 The law would serve to insulate perpetrators of deliberate contact from the consequences their contact inflicts upon their victims. Bodily integrity would be secondary to protecting a perpetrator’s right to deliberately touch another person’s body without being accountable for the consequences that contact occasioned. The “harmful or offensive” element would, in essence, be viewed from the perspective of the actor, not the objective eye of the law. Under this rule, so long as the actor does not deem his deliberate contact to be harmful or offensive, he may touch others however he wishes without liability under our law of battery. It is clear that the purpose of our civil law on battery was designed to create the opposite incentive. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts § 283B cmts. b & c.

¶ 48 The objection can be raised that such a theory of liability as we posit today expands liability beyond all reasonable bounds. Perhaps a handshake or other similar gesture will now expose a person to a lawsuit for battery if he happens to unknowingly shake the hand of an unwilling individual. The Restatement, however, and Prosser’s analysis thereof, yields this objection wholly without basis.

¶49 We must bear in mind that not all physical contacts deliberately initiated constitute batteries, only harmful or offensive ones. Though it is true that the actor need not appreciate that his contact is, nor need he intend it to be, harmful or offensive in order for it to be so and for him to be accountable for the injuries he inflicted by his intentional contact, the contact must in fact be harmful or offensive in order to constitute a battery.

¶ 50 We now explain that the legal test for harmful or offensive contact preserves the Restatement’s purpose of protecting the bodily integrity of individuals from invasion while still recognizing the practical realities of our physical world and the inevitable contacts therein. Because “harmful or offensive contact” is determined objectively by the law, *609only those deliberate contacts that meet the legal test for harmful or offensive will constitute batteries.

B. Harmful or Offensive Contact at Law

¶ 51 A harmful or offensive contact is simply one to which the recipient of the contact has not consented either directly or by implication. Prosser, supra, § 9, at 41-42. Under this definition, harmful or offensive contact is not limited to that which is medically injurious or perpetrated with the intent to cause some form of psychological or physical injury. Instead, it includes all physical contacts that the individual either expressly communicates are unwanted, or those contacts to which no reasonable person would consent.

¶ 52 What is not included in this definition are the uncommunicated idiosyncratic preferences of individuals not to be touched in ways considered normal and customary in our culture. Instead, the law assumes consent to contacts “according to the usages of decent society,” and unless an individual expressly states that he does not want to shake hands, for example, someone who shakes his hand against his silent wishes has not committed a harmful or offensive contact. Id. § 9, at 42.

¶ 53 As Prosser notes in his analysis on the subject, “in a crowded world, a certain amount of personal contact is inevitable, and must be accepted. Absent expression to the contrary, consent is assumed to all those ordinary contacts which are customary and reasonably necessary to the common intercourse of life.” Id. Among the contacts Pros-ser noted as part of this common intercourse were: “a tap on the shoulder,” “a friendly grasp of the arm,” and “a casual jostling to make a passage.” Id. Thus, the tort of battery seeks to strike a balance between preserving the bodily integrity of others and recognizing and accommodating the realities of our physical world.

¶ 54 Because the law defines “harmful and offensive” with reference to the mores of polite society, and protects against invasions of bodily integrity perpetrated outside those bounds, whether consent is assumed also depends upon who is making the contact. For example, it seems clear that “the usages of a decent society” and “polite manners” are in nowise offended when a baby reaches out to perform the non-medically injurious act of stroking the hair of a nearby stranger. Such encounters with babies are “customary ... in the course of life.” Id. § 9, at 42.

¶ 55 Thus, we can include this type of contact from babies in the category of contacts for which we are assumed to have consented. A grown man, on the other hand, perpetrating the same act for equally complimentary reasons, would not enjoy the same privilege, for his behavior would not be considered by reasonable people to be a customary contact in decent society to which members consent.

¶ 56 The Wagners argue that Mr. Giese has the mental age of a small infant, and should be held no more accountable for his acts than a child of his mental age would. We disagree with the Wagners’ legal conclusion.

¶ 57 As already explained, the law of torts, and battery in particular, was designed to protect people from unacceptable invasions of bodily integrity. Taking into account the realities of our physical world, and the physical contacts that are not only inevitable, but are part of our cultural customs, there are limits to the physical contacts from which the law will protect us. The law assumes consent as to all regular and culturally acceptable contacts. Certain contacts from very young children fall into this category primarily because most contacts from very young children are not medically injurious given their relative physical weakness and their standing in our society.

¶ 58 Not so with mentally handicapped adults. Even if the adult had the mental capacity of a small child, the difference in size and strength would make any attempt at an analogy between societal consent to a baby’s contact and societal consent to attacks at the hand of such an adult wholly unreasonable. Clearly, society has not simply consented to violent contacts from the mentally handicapped. Under the Restatement, as long as a person, mentally handicapped or not, intended to touch the person of another, and the touch was a harmful or offensive one *610at law, he has committed a battery, and the price of the injuries he inflicted must be paid out of his, or his caretaker’s, pockets.

¶ 59 Further, aside from this practical difference, there is a legal one as well. While the Restatement does provide that “[i]f an actor is a child, his mental deficiency is taken into account,” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 283B cmt. a, it grants no such exception for adults with the mental age of a child, instead clearly refusing to provide any allowance for the mentally handicapped to be free from liability for deliberate contacts that produce harm or offense. Id. § 283B cmt. e.

¶ 60 It does not matter that Mr. Giese may not have understood that Mrs. Wagner had not consented to the contact because it is not an element of the tort that the actor appreciate that the contact is unwanted. His mental incompetence may insulate him from criminal liability because the mental handicap may negate the mens rea requirement, but the same level of intent is not required for civil liability to attach.

¶ 61 The Wagners argue that Mr. Giese could not have committed any tort at all, either sounding in intentional torts or in negligence. However, if we were to adopt the rule urged by the Wagners, we would be contorting the law in order to provide recovery in this isolated instance. Yet, in doing so, we would be contracting the recoveries of all other plaintiffs victimized by insane or mentally handicapped individuals who are suing a non-State entity, and, in the process, limiting the protection of the bodily integrity of everyone.

¶ 62 The policy behind the Restatement definition of battery is to allow plaintiffs to recover from individuals who have caused them legal harm or injury, and to lay at the feet of the perpetrators the expense of their own conduct. Lawmakers have specifically declined to exempt mentally handicapped or insane individuals from the list of possible perpetrators of this tort for the express reason that they would prefer that the caretakers of such individuals feel heightened responsibility to ensure that their charges do not attack or otherwise injure members of the public.

¶ 63 We recognize that, in this instance, the retained immunity doctrine bars the caretakers of such a handicapped person from taking responsibility for the conduct of their charge. It is unfortunate, and perhaps it is improvident of the State to retain immunity in this area. But it is not our role as a judiciary to override the legislature in this matter; it is for us only to interpret and apply the law as it is. We will not limit the recoveries of all other plaintiffs similarly injured by defining the tort of battery in such a way as to make it far more burdensome for plaintiffs to satisfy its elements and recover, nor will we distort the plain language of the Restatement so as to elevate an actor’s “right” to deliberately touch others at will over an individual’s right to the preservation of her bodily integrity.

CONCLUSION

¶ 64 Applying the rule we have laid out today to the facts of this case, it is clear that Mr. Giese’s attack constituted a battery upon Mrs. Wagner. There is no allegation that his action was the result of an involuntary muscular movement or spasm. Further, the Wagners concede that Mr. Giese affirmatively attacked her; they do not argue that he made muscular movements that inadvertently or accidentally brought him into contact with her.

¶ 65 The fact that the Wagners allege that Mr. Giese could not have intended to harm her, or understood that his attack would inflict injury or offense, is not relevant to the analysis of whether a battery occurred. So long as he intended to make that contact, and so long as that contact was one to which Mrs. Wagner had not given her consent, either expressly or by implication, he committed a battery. Because battery is a tort for which the State has retained immunity, we affirm the court of appeals’ decision to dismiss the ease for failure to state a claim.

¶ 66 Justice DURRANT, Justice PARRISH, and Justice NEHRING concur in Associate Chief Justice WILKINS’ opinion.

*611DURHAM, Chief Justice,

concurring:

¶ 67 I concur in the lead opinion’s excellent treatment of the battery issue and write separately merely to note that the petitioners’ arguments regarding the continuing validity of Ledfors v. Emery County School District, 849 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1993), were stricken by this court because they were not addressed by the court of appeals and thus were not within the scope of our review on certiorari. Our opinion here therefore does not address that issue. Cf. Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, 100 Hawaii 34, 58 P.3d 545 (2002).

*234 Per Curiam.

The plaintiff-appellant, Ahron Leichtman, appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his complaint against the defendants-appellees, WLW Jacor Communications (“WLW”), William Cunningham and Andy Furman, for battery, invasion of privacy, and a violation of Cincinnati Bd. of Health Reg. No. 00083. In his single assignment of error, Leichtman contends that his complaint was sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and, therefore, the trial court was in error when it granted the defendants’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion. We agree in part.

In his complaint, Leichtman claims to be “a nationally known” antismoking advocate. Leichtman alleges that, on the date of the Great American Smokeout, he was invited to appear on the WLW Bill Cunningham radio talk show to discuss the harmful effects of smoking and breathing secondary smoke. He also alleges that, while he was in the studio, Furman, another WLW talk-show host, lit a cigar and repeatedly blew smoke in Leichtman’s face “for the purpose of causing physical discomfort, humiliation and distress.”

Under the rules of notice pleading, Civ.R. 8(A)(1) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” When construing a complaint for failure to state a claim, under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the court assumes that the factual allegations on the face of the complaint are true. O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 71 O.O.2d 223, 327 N.E.2d 753, syllabus. For the court to grant a motion to dismiss, “it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery.” Id. A court cannot dismiss a complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) merely because it doubts the plaintiff will prevail. Slife v. Kundtz Properties, Inc. (1974), 40 Ohio App.2d 179, 69 O.O.2d 178, 318 N.E.2d 557. Because it is so easy for the pleader to satisfy the standard of Civ.R. 8(A), few complaints are subject to dismissal. Id. at 182, 69 O.O.2d at 180, 318 N.E.2d at 560.

Leichtman contends that Furman’s intentional act constituted a battery. The Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965), states:

“An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if

“(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other, and

“(b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results[; or]1

*235“[c] an offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.”2 (Footnote added.)

In determining if a person is liable for a battery, the Supreme Court has adopted the rule that “[c]ontact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is offensive contact.” Love v. Port Clinton (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 98, 99, 524 N.E.2d 166, 167. It has defined “offensive” to mean “disagreeable or nauseating or painful because of outrage to taste and sensibilities or affronting insultingness.” State v. Phipps (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 271, 274, 12 O.O.3d 273, 275, 389 N.E.2d 1128, 1131. Furthermore, tobacco smoke, as “particulate matter,” has the physical properties capable of making contact. R.C. 3704.01(B) and 5709.20(A); Ohio Adm.Code 3745-17.

As alleged in Leichtman’s complaint, when Furman intentionally blew cigar smoke in Leichtman’s face, under Ohio common law, he committed a battery. No matter how trivial the incident, a battery is actionable, even if damages are only one dollar. Lacey v. Laird (1956), 166 Ohio St. 12, 1 O.O.2d 158, 139 N.E.2d 25, paragraph two of the syllabus. The rationale is explained by Roscoe Pound in his essay “Liability”: “[I]n civilized society men must be able to assume that others will do them no intentional injury — that others will commit no intentioned aggressions upon them.” Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (1922) 169.

Other jurisdictions also have concluded that a person can commit a battery by intentionally directing tobacco smoke at another. Richardson v. Hennly (1993), 209 Ga.App. 868, 871, 434 S.E.2d 772, 774-775. We do not, however, adopt or lend credence to the theory of a “smoker’s battery,” which imposes liability if there is substantial certainty that exhaled smoke will predictably contact a nonsmoker. Ezra, Smoker Battery: An Antidote to Second-Hand Smoke (1990), 63 S.Cal.L.Rev. 1061, 1090. Also, whether the “substantial certainty” prong of *236intent from the Restatement of Torts translates to liability for secondary smoke via the intentional tort doctrine in employment cases as defined by the Supreme Court in Fyffe v. Jeno’s, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 115, 570 N.E.2d 1108, paragraph one of the syllabus, need not be decided here because Leichtman’s claim for battery is based exclusively on Furman’s commission of a deliberate act. Finally, because Leichtman alleges that Furman deliberately blew smoke into his face, we find it unnecessary to address offensive contact from passive or secondary smoke under the “glass cage” defense of McCracken v. Sloan (1979), 40 N.C.App. 214, 217, 252 S.E.2d 250, 252, relied on by the defendants.

Neither Cunningham nor WLW is entitled to judgment on the battery claim under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Concerning Cunningham, at common law, one who is present and encourages or incites commission of a battery by words can be equally liable as a principal. Bell v. Miller (1831), 5 Ohio 250; 6 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1978) 121-122, Assault, Section 20. Leichtman’s complaint states, “At Defendant Cunningham’s urging, Defendant Furman repeatedly blew cigar smoke in Plaintiffs face.”

With regard to WLW, an employer is not legally responsible for the intentional torts of its employees that do not facilitate or promote its business. Osborne v. Lyles (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 329-330, 587 N.E.2d 825, 828-829. However, whether an employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because its employee is acting within the scope of employment is ordinarily a question of fact. Id. at 330, 587 N.E.2d at 825. Accordingly, Leichtman’s claim for battery with the allegations against the three defendants in the second count of the complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).

By contrast, the first and third counts of Leichtman’s complaint do not state claims upon which relief can be granted. The trial court correctly granted the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion as to both counts. In his first count, Leichtman alleged a tortious invasion of his privacy. See, generally, Restatement, supra, at 376, Section 652B, as adopted by Sustin v. Fee (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 143, 145, 23 O.O.3d 182, 183-184, 431 N.E.2d 992, 993. A claim for invasion of privacy may involve any one of four distinct torts. Prosser, Privacy (1960), 48 Cal.L.Rev. 383. The tort that is relevant here requires some substantial intrusion into a plaintiffs solitude, seclusion, habitation, or affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. See, e.g., Restatement, supra, at 378-379, Section 652B, Comments a to d; Killilea v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (1985), 27 Ohio App.3d 163, 166, 27 OBR 196, 198-199, 499 N.E.2d 1291, 1294. Leichtman acknowledges that he willingly entered the WLW radio studio to make a public radio appearance with Cunningham, who is known for his blowtorch rhetoric. Therefore, Leicht*237man’s allegations do not support his assertion that Furman, Cunningham, or WLW intruded into his privacy.

In his third count, Leichtman attempts to create a private right of action for violation of Cincinnati Bd. of Health Reg. No. 00083, which makes it illegal to smoke in designated public places. Even if we are to assume, for argument, that a municipal regulation is tantamount to public policy established by a statute enacted by the General Assembly, the regulation has created rights for nonsmokers that did not exist at common law. Bd. of Health Reg., supra, at Sections 00083-7 and 00083-13. Therefore, because sanctions also are provided to enforce the regulation, there is no implied private remedy for its violation. R.C. 3707.99, 3707.48(C); Franklin Cty. Law Enforcement Assn. v. Fraternal Order of Police, Capital City Lodge No. 9 (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 167, 169, 572 N.E.2d 87, 89-90; Fawcett v. G.C. Murphy & Co. (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 245, 248-250, 75 O.O.2d 291, 293-294, 348 N.E.2d 144, 147 (superseded by statute on other grounds).

Arguably, trivial cases are responsible for an avalanche of lawsuits in the courts. They delay cases that are important to individuals and corporations and that involve important social issues. The result is justice denied to litigants and their counsel who must wait for their day in court. However, absent circumstances that warrant sanctions for frivolous appeals under App.R. 23, we refuse to limit one’s right to sue. Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution states, “All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delay.”

This case emphasizes the need for some form of alternative dispute resolution operating totally outside the court system as a means to provide an attentive ear to the parties and a resolution of disputes in a nominal case. Some need a forum in which they can express corrosive contempt for another without dragging their antagonist through the expense inherent in a lawsuit. Until such an alternative forum is created, Leichtman’s battery claim, previously knocked out by the trial judge in the first round, now survives round two to advance again through the courts into round three.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment as to the first and third counts of the complaint, but we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order that dismissed the battery claim in the second count of the complaint. This cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with law on that claim only.

Judgment accordingly.

Doan, P.J., Hildebrandt and Gorman, JJ., concur.

GREENHILL, Justice.

This is a suit for actual and exemplary damages growing out of an alleged assault and battery. The plaintiff Fisher was a mathematician with the Data Processing Division of the Manned Spacecraft Center, an agency of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, commonly called NASA, near Houston. The defendants were the Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., located in Houston, the Brass Ring Club, which is located in the Carrousel, and Robert W. Flynn, who as an employee of the Carrousel was the manager of the Brass Ring Club. Flynn died before the trial, and the suit proceeded as to the Carrousel and the Brass Ring. Trial was to a jury which found for the plaintiff Fisher. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 414 S.W.2d 774. The questions before this Court are whether there was evidence that an actionable battery was committed, and, if so, whether the two corporate- defendants must respond in exemplary as well as actual damages for the malicious conduct of Flynn.

The plaintiff Fisher had been invited by Ampex Corporation and Defense Electronics to a one day’s meeting regarding telemetry equipment at the Carrousel. The invitation included a luncheon. The guests were asked to reply by telephone whether they could attend the luncheon, and Fisher called in his acceptance. After the morning session, the group of 25 or 30 guests adjourned to the Brass Ring Club for lunch. The luncheon was buffet style, and Fisher stood in line with others and just ahead of a graduate student of Rice University who testified at the trial. As Fisher was about to be served, he was approached by Flynn, who snatched the plate from Fisher’s hand and shouted that he, a Negro, could not be *629served in the club. Fisher testified that he was not actually touched, and did not testify that he suffered fear or apprehension of physical injury; but he did testify that he was highly embarrassed and hurt by Flynn’s conduct in the presence of his associates.

The jury found that Flynn “forceably dispossessed plaintiff of his dinner plate” and “shouted in a loud and offensive manner” that Fisher could not be served there, thus subjecting Fisher to humiliation and indignity. It was stipulated that Flynn was an employee of the Carrousel Hotel and, as such, managed the Brass Ring Club. The jury also found that Flynn acted maliciously and awarded Fisher $400 actual damages for his humiliation and indignity and $500 exemplary damages for Flynn’s malicious conduct.

The Court of Civil Appeals held that there was no assault because there was no physical contact and no evidence of fear or apprehension of physical contact. However, it has long been settled that there can be a battery without an assault, and that actual physical contact is not necessary to constitute a battery, so long as there is contact with clothing or an object closely identified with the body. 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 216 (1956) ; Restatement of Torts 2d, §§ 18 and 19. In Prosser, Law of Torts 32 (3d Ed. 1964), it is said:

“The interest in freedom from intentional and unpermitted contacts witlrthe plaintiff’s person is protected by an action for the tort commonly called battery. The protection extends to any part of the body, or to anything which is attached to it and practically identified with it. Thus contact with the plaintiff’s clothing, or with a cane, a paper, or any other object held in his hand will be sufficient; * * * The plaintiff’s interest in the integrity of his person includes all those things which are in contact or connected with it.”

Under the facts of this case, we have no difficulty in holding that the intentional grabbing of plaintiff’s plate constituted a battery. The intentional snatching of an object from one’s hand is as clearly an offensive invasion of his person as would be an actual contact with the body. “To constitute an assault and battery, it is not necessary to touch the plaintiff’s body or even his clothing; knocking dr snatching anything from plaintiff’s hand or touching anything connected with his person, when done in an offensive manner, is sufficient.” Morgan v. Loyacomo, 190 Miss. 656, 1 So.2d 510 (1941).

Such holding is not unique to the jurisprudence of this State. In S. H. Kress & Co. v. Brashier, 50 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Civ.App.1932, no writ), the defendant was held to have committed “an assault or trespass upon the person” by snatching a book from the plaintiff’s hand. The jury findings in that case were that the defendant “dispossessed plaintiff of the book” and caused her to suffer “humiliation and indignity.”

The rationale for holding an offensive contact with such an object to be a battery is explained in 1 Restatement of Torts 2d § 18 (Comment p. 31) as follows:

“Since the essence of the plaintiff’s grievance consists in the offense to the dignity involved in the unpermitted and intentional invasion of the inviolability of his person and not in any physical harm done to his body, it is not necessary that the plaintiff’s actual body be disturbed. Unpermitted and intentional contacts with anything so connected with the body as to be customarily regarded as part of the other’s person and therefore as partaking of its inviolability is actionable as an offensive contact with his person. There are some things such as clothing or a cane or, indeed, anything directly grasped by the hand which are so intimately connected with one’s body as to be universally regarded as part of the person.”

*630We hold,. therefore, that the forceful dispossession of plaintiff Fisher’s plate in an offensive manner was sufficient to constitute a battery, and the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of actual damages.

In Harned v. E-Z Finance Co., 151 Tex. 641, 254 S.W.2d 81 (1953), this Court refused to adopt the “new tort” of intentional interference with peace of mind which permits recovery for mental suffering in the absence of resulting physical injury or an assault and battery. This cause of action has long been advocated by respectable writers and legal scholars. See, for example, Prosser, Insult and Outrage, 44 Cal.L.Rev. 40 (1956); Wade, Tort Liability for Abusive and Insulting Language, 4 Vand.L.Rev. 63 (1950); Prosser, Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering: A New Tort, 37 Mich.L.Rev. 874 (1939); 1 Restatement of Torts 2d § 46(1). However, it is not necessary to adopt such a cause of action in order to sustain the verdict of the jury in this case. The Harned case recognized the well established rule that mental suffering is compensable in suits for willful torts “which are recognized as torts and actionable independently and separately from mental suffering or other injury.” 254 S.W.2d at 85. Damages for mental suffering are recoverable without the necessity for showing actual physical injury in a case of willful battery because the basis of that action is the unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiff’s person and not the actual harm done to the plaintiff’s body. Restatement of Torts 2d § 18. Personal indignity is the essence of an action for battery; and consequently the defendant is liable not only for contacts which do actual physical harm, but also for those which are offensive and insulting. Prosser, supra; Wilson v. Orr, 210 Ala. 93, 97 So. 123 (1923). We hold, therefore, that plaintiff was entitled to actual damages for mental suffering due to the willful battery, even in the absence of any physical injury.

We now turn to the question of the liability of the corporations for exemplary damages. In this regard, the jury found that Flynn was acting within the course and scope of his employment on the occasion in question; that Flynn acted maliciously and with a wanton disregard of the rights and feelings of plaintiff on the occasion in question. There is no attack upon these jury findings. The jury further found that the defendant Carrousel did not authorize or approve the conduct of Flynn. It is argued that there is no evidence to support this finding. The jury verdict concluded with a finding that $500 would “reasonably compensate plaintiff for the malicious act and wanton disregard of plaintiff’s feelings and rights. * * * ”

The rule in Texas is that a principal or master is liable for exemplary or punitive damages because of the acts of his agent, but only if:

(a) the principal authorized the doing and the manner of the act, or

(b) the agent was unfit and the principal was reckless in employing him, or

(c) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of employment, or

(d) the employer or a manager of the employer ratified or approved the act.

The above test is set out in the Restatement of Torts § 909 and was adopted in King v. McGuff, 149 Tex. 432, 234 S.W.2d 403 (1950). At the trial of this case, the following stipulation was made in open, court:

“It is further stipulated and agreed to by all parties that as an employee of the Carrousel Motor Hotel the said Robert W. Flynn was manager of the Brass Ring Club.”

We think this stipulation brings the case squarely within part (c) of the rule an*631nounced in the King case as to Flynn’s managerial capacity. It is undisputed that Flynn was acting in the scope of employment at the time of the incident; he was attempting to enforce the Club rules by depriving Fisher of service.

The rule of the Restatement of Torts adopted in the King case set out above has four separate and disjunctive categories as a basis of liability. They are separated by the word “or.” As applicable here, there is liability if (a) the act is authorized, or (d) the act is ratified or approved, or (c) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the scope of his employment. Since it was established that the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was in the scope of his employment, the finding of the jury that the Carrousel did not authorize or approve Flynn’s conduct became immaterial.

The King case also cited and relied upon Ft. Worth Elevator Co. v. Russell, 123 Tex. 128, 70 S.W.2d 397 (1934). In that case, it was held not to be material that the employer did not authorize or ratify the particular conduct of the employee; and the right to exemplary damages was supported under what is section (b) of the Restatement or King rule: The agent was unfit, and the principal was reckless in employing [or retaining] him.

After the jury verdict in this case, counsel for the plaintiff moved that the trial court disregard the answer to issue number eight [no authorization or approval of Flynn’s conduct on the occasion in question] and for judgment upon the verdict. The trial court erred in overruling that motion and in entering judgment for the defendants notwithstanding the verdict; and the Court of Civil Appeals erred in affirming that judgment.

The judgments of the courts below are reversed, and judgment is here rendered for the plaintiff for $900 with interest from the date of the trial court’s judgment, and for costs of this suit.

Wells, J.*

All the judges concur that the evidence introduced at the trial would warrant a conviction of assault and battery, or for a simple assault, which it includes. And in the opinion of a majority of the court, the instructions given required the jury to find all that was essential to constitute the offence of assault and battery.

The jury must have found a physical injury inflicted upon another person by a voluntary act of the defendant, directed towards her, which was without justification and unlawful. Although the defendant was ignorant of the qualities of the drug he administered, and of the effects to be expected from it, and had been *305assured and believed that it was not deleterious to health, yet he knew it was not ordinary food, that the girl was deceived into taking it, and he intended that she should be induced to take it without her conscious consent, by the deceit which he practised upon her. It is to be inferred from the statement of the case that he expected it would produce some effect. In the most favorable aspect of the facts for the defendant, he administered tc the girl, without her consent and by deceit, a drug or “ foreign substance,” of the probable effect of which he was ignorant, with the express intent and purpose “ to try the effect of it upon ” her. This, in itself, was unlawful, and he must be held responsible for whatever effect it produced. Being an unlawful interference with the personal rights of another, calculated to result and in fact resulting in physical injury, the criminal intent is to be inferred from the nature of the act and its actual results. 3 Bl. Com. 120. Rex v. Long, 4 C. & P. 398, 407, note. The deceit, by means of which the girl was induced to take the drug, was a fraud upon her will, equivalent to force in overpowering it. Commonwealth v. Burke, 105 Mass. 376. Regina v. Lock, 12 Cox C. C. 244. Regina v. Sinclair, 13 Cox C. C. 28.

Although force and violence are included in all definitions of assault, or assault and battery, yet, where there is physical injury to another person, it is sufficient that the cause is set in motion by the defendant, or that the person is subjected to its operation by means of any act or control which the defendant exerts. In 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 799, is a count, at common law, for an assault with drugs. For other instances of assault and battery without actual violence directed against the person assaulted, see 1 Gabbett’s Crim. Law, 82; Rose. Crim. Ev. (8th ed.) 296; 3 Bl. Com. 120, and notes; 2 Greenl. Ev. § 84.

If one should hand an explosive substance to another, and induce him to take it by misrepresenting or concealing its dangerous qualities, and the other, ignorant of its character, should receive it and cause it to explode in his pocket or hand, and should be injured by it, the offending party would be guilty of a battery, and that would necessarily include an assault; although he might not be guilty even of an assault, if the su bstance failed *306to explode or failed to cause any injury. It would be the same if it exploded in his mouth or stomach. If that which causes the injury is set in motion by the wrongful act of the defendant, it cannot be material whether it acts upon the person injured externally or internally, by mechanical or chemical force.

In Regina v. Button, 8 C. & P. 660, one who put Spanish flies into coffee to be drank by another, was convicted of an assault upon the person who took it, although it was done “ only for a lark.” This decision is said to have been overruled in England. Regina v. Dilworth, 2 Mood. & Rob. 531. The Queen v. Walkden, 1 Cox C. C. 282. Regina v. Hanson, 2 C. & K. 912. In the view of the majority of the court, the last only of these three cases was a direct adjudication, and that entirely upon the authority of mere dicta in the other two, and without any satisfactory reasoning or statement of grounds; and the earlier decision in Regina v. Button is more consistent with general principles, and the better law.

Exceptions overruled.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Davis, J.:

Celesta Baska brought an action for personal injuries sustained when she attempted to stop a fight by stepping between the defendants, Harry Scherzer, Jr., and Calvin Madrigal. Her action was brought after the expiration of a year from her injury but within 2 years from the date of her injury. After some discovery, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions for summaiy judgment and dismissed Baska’s action based upon its conclusion that her action was governed by the 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery, K.S.A. 60-514(b). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Baska’s action sounded in negligence, and thus was subject to the 2-year statute of limitations under K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4), primarily because she was unintentionally struck by defendants. We granted the defendants’ petitions for review, and now we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court.

*752 Facts

Baslca had given her daughter Ashley, a high school senior, permission to organize a “scavenger hunt” with some friends. The scavenger hunt began at the Baskas’ house around 8:30 p.m. and was to end with the participants returning to the house by midnight. When people returned, a number of them remained at the Baskas’ home for a “party.”

Scherzer and Madrigal were both at the party. Madrigal had participated in the scavenger hunt; Scherzer remained at the house while the hunt ensued, playing cards with Baska. He then went outside as people began to return to the house.

Around midnight, an altercation broke out between Scherzer and Madrigal. Madrigal approached Scherzer from behind, and the two boys began to push each other and throw punches at one another. Upon being informed of the fight by one of her daughter’s friends, Baska yelled at the boys to stop in order to break up the fight. When they continued to fight, Baska placed herself between the boys and was punched in the face, losing several teeth and receiving injuries to her neck and jaw. Baska is certain that Scherzer hit her in the face; she also believes that Madrigal punched her in the back of the head.

On April 8, 2004, just short of 2 years after the incident, Baska filed suit against Madrigal and Scherzer, alleging that she was injured by the defendants’ negligence. In her petition she alleged:

“5. That die defendants, in their excitement and totally unintentionally, struck the plaintiff with powerful blows intended for the other participant in the fight.

“6. That the sole and proximate cause of plaintiff s injuries was tíre negligence and carelessness of the defendants.”

Both defendants filed motions to dismiss based on tire statute of limitations, alleging that the suit was barred by the 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery, K.S.A. 60-514(b). The district court originally granted the motions; however, the court later granted Baska’s motion to reconsider and allowed the parties to pursue additional discovery.

Depositions were taken of Baska, Madrigal, and Scherzer. Both Madrigal and Scherzer testified in their depositions that they did *753not intend to strike or injure Baska in any way. Instead, each defendant testified that it was his intention in throwing the punches to strike and injure the other defendant. In her deposition, Baska’s counsel asked her whether she “would anticipate that the intended recipient of [Scherzer’s] blow was Mr. Madrigal and not [herself].” Baska answered, “Yes, sir.”

After depositions, Madrigal and Scherzer filed motions for summary judgment again based on the 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery. In its decision after conducting a hearing, the court concluded that the doctrine of transferred intent applied and that Baska’s cause of action was an action for assault and battery, not negligence. The court explained:

“Well, the plaintiffs theory, as I understand it, is that in trying to bréale up this altercation that she was injured by the negligent acts of the two participants who were defending themselves, each of them claiming self defense, and in a negligent manner.

“The depositions of both of the combatants having been taken now, it appears to me that they were striking at each other. Those are intentional acts. The doctrine of transferred intent has been the law in Kansas probably since this place became a state because I think it came straight out of the common law, and it’s certainly been the law since I was in law school 30 years ago.

“I don’t see anything in [the plaintiff s] citations . . . that the State of Kansas has gone away from that. So I think that in each of these two cases, each — as to each defendant, motion for summary judgment must be granted on the basis that these are intentional acts and the doctrine transferred intent would apply, and they should have been filed within the one year of statute of limitations.”

Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished opinion, Baska v. Scherzer, Case No. 94,879, filed August 4, 2006. Although the court did not dispute the district court’s statement of the facts, it disagreed with the district court’s conclusion. The Court of Appeals noted that “[t]he key distinction between assault and battery on one hand, and negligence on the other, is that assault and battery are both intentional torts and negligence is unintentional. [Citation omitted.]” Slip op. at 5. The court ultimately held that the plaintiff s action in this case sounded in negligence, because the plaintiff was “unintentionally struck” by the defendants. Slip op. at 14.

*754The Court of Appeals reviewed a number of Kansas decisions as well as a number of cases from other jurisdictions, concluding that “the law on this issue is unclear.” Slip op. at 6-13 (citing Harris v. Richards, 254 Kan. 549, 867 P.2d 325 [1994]; Hackenberger v. Travelers Mutual Cas. Co., 144 Kan. 607, 62 P.2d 545 [1936]; Byrum v. Edwards, 66 Kan. 96, 71 Pac. 250 [1903]; Laurent v. Bernier, 1 Kan. *428 [1863]; and Vetter v. Morgan, 22 Kan. App. 2d 1, 913 P.2d 1200, rev. denied 257 Kan. 1096 [1995]). The court noted that “Laurent, Byrum, and Hackenberger tend to suggest that Baska’s only cause of action is assault and battery because Madrigal and Scherzer acted intentionally.” Slip op. at 12. Nevertheless, it noted that “[although these cases have not been overruled, they appear inconsistent with Vetter and the dicta in Harris.” Slip op. at 12. In light of tírese inconsistencies, the court explained its synthesis of tírese decisions as follows:

“The law on this issue appears to have shifted from the earlier position that an intentional act of violence, which has an unintentional effect on a third party, must be viewed as assault and batteiy for purposes of application of the statute of limitations. . . .

“If we can take guidance from these cases, it appears that a specific intent to perform a certain act, such as shooting someone, even if there is a mistaken identity, will generally lead to a finding that the 1-year limitation on assault and batteiy is applied.

“However, threatening actions which lead to unanticipated results may well be viewed as negligence as long as the plaintiff is not purposefully and intentionally struck by the defendant.

“We have a blending in this case, where Baska was probably unintentionally struck during a fight between Scherzer and Madrigal. AMiough the law may not be clear, we find the rationale in Vetter should be used. We, therefore, reverse the district court’s finding that the 1-year statute of limitations applied and remand for further proceedings.” Slip op. at 13-15.

Both defendants, Madrigal and Scherzer, filed petitions for review, claiming that the Court of Appeals misstated the applicable law. In particular, the defendants argue that tire Court of Appeals, without any discussion thereof, eviscerated the doctrine of transferred intent by holding a negligence tort action lies for an assault and battery when the injured party is not the intended victim.

*755The sole issue we must resolve is whether plaintiff s action is governed by the 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery under K.S.A. 60-514(b) or by the 2-year statute of limitations for negligence under K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4). The facts are not in dispute, and the answer to this question is one of law.

Standard of Review

Baska appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis that she filed her claim after the 1-year statute of Mmitations for assault and battery had run.

“ ‘ “Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, togedier with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court is required to resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought. When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party must come forward with evidence to establish a dispute as to a material fact. In order to preclude summary judgment, the facts subject to the dispute must be material to the conclusive issues in the case. On appeal, we apply the same rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied.” [Citations omitted.]’ ” State ex rel. Stovall v. Reliance Ins. Co., 278 Kan. 777, 788, 107 P.3d 1219 (2005).

Where the facts are undisputed, appellate review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Roy v. Young, 278 Kan. 244, 247, 93 P.3d 712 (2004).

Discussion and Analysis

While the plaintiff alleges negligence in her petition, calling for the application of a 2-year statute of limitations, this court is not bound by the claims as set forth in the petition. Instead, “ ‘[t]he law of this state is realistic. Substance prevails over form.’ ” Murray v. Modoc State Bank, 181 Kan. 642, 647, 313 P.2d 304 (1957) (quoting Travis v. Bishoff, 143 Kan. 283, 285, 54 P.2d 955 [1936]). The determinative question is whether the substance of plaintiff s claims against the defendants sounds in assault and battery or negligence.

*756K.S.A. 60-514(b) provides that civil actions for assault and battery must be initiated within 1 year of the date of the incident giving rise to the action. Under K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4), negligence claims must be brought within 2 years. The fight between defendants that resulted in the plaintiff s injuries occurred on April 13, 2002. Baska filed her action on April 8, 2004. The outcome of this case depends upon whether Baska’s claims are in substance based upon intentional or negligent actions of the defendants. If intentional, Baska’s claims are barred by the 1-year statute of limitations; if negligent, her claims are not barred and are governed by dre 2-year statute of limitations.

Assault is defined in this state as “an intentional threat or attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to do bodily harm to another, resulting in immediate apprehension of bodily harm. No bodily contact is necessary.” PIK Civ. 3d 127.01; see State v. Hazen, 160 Kan. 733, 740-41, 165 P.2d 234 (1946). Battery is defined as “the unprivileged touching or striking of one person by another, done with the intent of bringing about either a contact or an apprehension of contact, that is harmful or offensive.” PIK Civ. 3d 127.02; see Laurent, 1 Kan. at “431. The gravamen of a civil assault and battery is grounded upon the actor’s intention to inflict injury. Stricklin v. Parsons Stockyard Co., 192 Kan. 360, 366, 388 P.2d 824 (1964).

In order to state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must show “ ‘(1) [t]he existence of a duty on the part of defendant to protect plaintiff from the injury; (2) failure of defendant to perform that duty; and (3) injury to plaintiff from such failure of defendant.’ ” Murray, 181 Kan. at 646 (quoting McMillen v. Summunduwot Lodge, 143 Kan. 502, 509, 54 P.2d 985 [1936]). Put another way, '[n]egligence is an unintentional breach of a legal duty causing damage reasonably foreseeable without which breach the damage would not have occurred.’ ” ’ ” Murray, 181 Kan. at 646 (quoting McMillen, 143 Kan. at 509, and 45 C.J. 631).

As these definitions make clear, “the fundamental distinction between assault and battery, on the one hand, and negligence, on the other, is that the former is intentional and the latter is unintentional. [Citations omitted.]” Murray, 181 Kan. at 646; see *757 Baska, slip op. at 5. The district court held that Baska’s cause of action was truly one for assault and battery because the defendants intended to strike one another when they were fighting. The Court of Appeals, however, found that where Baska was “unintentionally struck” by the defendants, her cause of action sounded in negligence. Baska, slip op. at 15. The defendants intended to harm each other, but as Baska claims in her petition, “the defendants, in their excitement and totally unintentionally, struck the plaintiff with powerful blows intended for the other participant in the fight.” (Emphasis added.)

The above situation is not unfamiliar in the law of intentional torts. The Restatement (Second) of Torts and this court’s decisions discuss this situation as being contemplated by the long-standing doctrine of transferred intent. The Restatement explains that the term “intent,” as it is used in the law of torts, “denotefs] that the actor desires to cause [the] consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (1964). The comments to this section state that

“[a]ll consequences which the actor desires to bring about are intended, as the word is used in this Restatement. Intent is not, however, limited to consequences which are desired. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he is treated by tire law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result. As the probability that the consequences will follow decreases, and becomes less tiran substantial certainty, the actor’s conduct loses the character of intent, and becomes mere recklessness .... As the probability decreases further, and amounts only to a risk that the result will follow, it becomes ordinary negligence . . . .” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A, comment b.

This court has similarly explained that an actor will be held liable for an intentional tort if the plaintiff s injuries were the “natural and probable consequence of [the defendant’s] intended actions.” Harris, 254 Kan. at 554. However, an action need not be directed at the plaintiff in order to give rise to liability for intentional torts (such as assault or battery). Rather, the doctrine of transferred intent states that “[t]he tort of battery or of assault and battery may be committed, although the person struck or hit by the defendant *758is not the one whom he intended to strike or hit.” 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Assault and Battery § 99, p. 83.

The comments to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, in describing the intent necessary for battery, explain:

“The intention which is necessary to malee the actor hable [for civil battery] is not necessarily an intention to cause a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension of such contact to the plaintiff himself or otherwise to cause him bodily harm. It is enough that the actor intends to produce such an effect «pon some other person and that his act so intended is the legal cause of a harmful contact to the other. It is not necessary that tire actor know or have reason even to suspect that the other is in the vicinity of the third person whom the actor intends to affect and, therefore, that he should recognize that his act, though directed against the third person, involves a risk of causing bodily harm to the other so that the act would be negligent toward him.” (Emphasis added.) Restatement (Second) of Torts § 16, comment b (1964).

Similarly, the comments to the section describing the intent required to state an action for assault state that “[i]n order to become liable [for civil assault], it is necessary that the actor intend to inflict a harmful or offensive bodily contact upon the other or a third person or put him [her] in apprehension of such contact.” (Emphasis added.) Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21, comment f (1964).

This court’s recognition of the transferred intent principle dates to Laurent, 1 Kan. *428, which was decided during the Civil War. In that case, the plaintiff sued the defendant in negligence, alleging that he had been injured when the defendant negligently shot him. This court determined that the plaintiff s claim was barred by the 1-year statue of limitations for battery, because the action described (shooting someone) was a batteiy. 1 Kan. at *432. The court cited a New York decision in Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 391 (1829), and referred to “several English authorities” that supported its conclusion that “the wounding charged in the case under consideration may properly be described as a battery, and the case, therefore, comes within the provisions . . . limiting the time for commencing action to one year.” 1 Kan. at *431-32.

This conclusion was reiterated in Byrum, 66 Kan. 96. There, both the plaintiff and an undersheriff were searching for the perpetrator of a robbery in Oswego. When the two searchers met, *759each mistakenly thought the other was the robber. Both fired shots, and tire undersheriff s shot hit the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued the sheriff “to recover damages for the injuries sustained because of tire negligent shooting of him by his under-sheriff.” 66 Kan. at 97. In a veiy short opinion, this court cited Laurent and held that the action was barred by the 1-year statute of limitations. 66 Kan. at 97. This court later summarized its opinion in Byrum as follows: “It is well to note tire shooting in the Byrum case was in fact intentional. The undersheriff intended to shoot and he did shoot. True, the injured party was not the robber as the undersheriff drought, but the act of shooting was nevertheless intentional.” Hackenberger, 144 Kan. at 609.

These two early opinions were discussed in detail by this court in Hackenberger, wherein the plaintiff was a passenger in the back of a truck and was sitting with his legs over the side. A cattle truck coming the other direction was passing another car as it was speeding around a curve; the cattle truck crowded the plaintiff s truck off of the highway and came into contact with the plaintiff s legs, causing him injury. The plaintiff filed suit in negligence. The defendant, however, claimed that the petition actually stated an action for batteiy and thus was barred by the 1-year statute of limitations. Citing Laurent and Byrum, this court clarified that had the driver of tire cattle truck intended to hit the truck on which the plaintiff was riding, the action should have been dismissed. 144 Kan. at 609-10. However, because “[t]he petition is not susceptible of an interpretation that [the driver of the cattle truck] intentionally inflicted the injury,” the court held that the 2-year limitations period for negligence should be applied. 144 Kan. at 611.

Although tire court did not explicitly state that it was applying the doctrine of transferred intent in these early decisions, the outcome of the cases is consistent with the present understanding of transferred intent in tort cases. In Byrum, the officer intended to shoot the robber and mistakenly shot and injured the plaintiff. The court found that the officer s action was intentional and that the 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery applied. In Hackenberger, the driver of the cattle truck never intended to drive the truck carrying the plaintiff off of the road or to hit anyone. When *760the truck hit the plaintiff s legs, the plaintiff s action sounded in negligence, and the 2-year statute of limitations was proper.

The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that Laurent, Byrum, and Hackenberger suggested that B as lea’s only cause of action was for assault and battery based upon defendants’ intentional acts. Slip op. at 12. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that it was not bound to follow these earlier decisions in light of “dicta” in Harris and the decision of the Kansas Court of Appeals in Vetter. These two decisions are discussed below, but it must be noted that the Court of Appeals did not discuss the doctrine of transfer in its opinion, a doctrine implicitly applied in Kansas civil law and explicitly applied in criminal law. See Laurent, 1 Kan. at *431; Byrum, 66 Kan. at 96; State v. Stringfield, 4 Kan. App. 2d 559, 561, 608 P.2d 1041, rev. denied 228 Kan. 807 (1980).

In the Harris case, the plaintiff was injured when Douglas Hawley fired a shotgun through the window of the plaintiff s pickup truck, killing Hawley’s ex-wife and injuring Harris. Hawley then killed himself. Harris brought a negligence action against Hawley’s estate to recover damages, asserting that Hawley had only intended to shoot his ex-wife and that his injuries arose out of Hawley’s negligence. The key issue in Harris was whether the act giving rise to liability was intentional, and thus excluded from coverage under the actor’s homeowner’s insurance policy. The trial court ruled that the plaintiff s claim against the estate was limited to any applicable insurance coverage. The court then granted the estate’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that tire shooting was not a covered occurrence under Hawley’s parent’s homeowner’s policy and that Plawley’s acts were excluded under the policy because they were intentional. This court affirmed. 254 Kan. at 556. Our decision in Harris is in this way consistent with our earlier decisions in Laurent and Byrum, based on the intentional act of Hawley injuring an unintended victim.

However, the Court of Appeals concluded, based upon the following dicta in Harris, that the precedent in Laurent, Byrum, and Hackenberger no longer controlled:

“The Richards [Hawleys’ parents and die administrators of his estate] argued [before the trial court] that the fundamental nature of the underlying tort was that *761of a battexy rather than negligence. Consequently, they asserted that K.S.A. 60-514(2), the one-year statute of limitations for battery, barred the claim, and they mooed for dismissal. The motion was denied. The Richards cross-appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss.

“Because we have affirmed the trial court’s analysis of the insurance coverage issue, we find it unnecessary to address the cross-appeal other than to indicate we find no error in the trial court’s ruling on the statute of hmitations issue.” (Emphasis added.) 254 Kan. at 550-51.

The Court of Appeals found that this language in Harris was “inconsistent” with this court’s previous decisions in Laurent, Byrum, and Hackenberger. It based its decision upon the erroneous conclusion that the trial court denied a summary judgment motion requesting a 1-year limitation period, which “the Kansas Supreme Court, in dicta, found not to be in error. [Citation omitted.]” Baska, slip op. at 13-14. However, the dicta in Harris involved an appeal from a motion to dismiss, not a motion for summary judgment. A motion to dismiss must be based solely on the petition. K.S.A. 60-212; Gardner v. McDowell, 202 Kan. 705, 706, 451 P.2d 501 (1969). Thus, based upon the petition only in Harris, this court approved the actions of the trial court in its conclusion not to dismiss because the petition in Harris was not invalid on its face with regard to the statute of limitations.

Only after discovery in Harris did the trial court grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no question that Hawley had intended to strike his wife and instead struck the plaintiff. At this point, the decision of this court in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was entirely consistent with our previous decisions in Laurent, Byrum, and Hackenberger. The dicta in Harris was misunderstood by the Court of Appeals and provides no support for its conclusion that it was not bound to follow earlier decisions of this court. Correctly understood and applied, the Harris dicta actually supports the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this case based upon the conclusion that the defendants’ actions were intentional.

The Court of Appeals cited this court’s decision in Murray, 181 Kan. 642, as “characterizing] a blatant assault and battery as negligence. [Citation omitted.]” Baska, slip op. at 14. The court noted *762that Murray was “based on a puzzling pleading ruling.” Slip op. at 14. Again, tire Court of Appeals’ characterization of Murray is incorrect. Although die facts giving rise to that case involved injuries arising from a physical altercation with a bank cashier, the case itself was based on the bank’s negligent hiring of the cashier in question. 181 Kan. at 644-45. This court explicitly stated that the action was not brought under respondeat superior, which would make the principal responsible for the acts of the servant. 181 Kan. at 649. The Murray decision based upon a negligent hiring has no application to the case we now consider.

The Court of Appeals’ decision below relied most heavily on its previous decision in Vetter, 22 Kan. App. 2d 1. In that case, the plaintiff s van ran off of the road after the defendant, a passenger in another vehicle, made verbal threats to the plaintiff and the car in which the defendant was riding veered at the plaintiff s van. The defendant claimed that he “did not intend to scare, upset, or harm Vetter,” but instead was attempting to amuse the other passengers in tire car with him. 22 Kan. App. 2d at 2. The plaintiff brought a number of claims against the defendant, including a claim for negligence. The trial court dismissed the negligence claim as a matter of law, finding that the defendant’s actions were intentional.

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in dismissing tire plaintiffs negligence claim. It explained:

“A negligence claim may be based on intentional rude pranks and horseplay that cause unintended injuiy. [Citation omitted.] Actions that are not intended to, but do cause fear of harm may be negligence. [Citation omitted.] Moreover, a negligence claim may be based on actions tire defendant intends to affect, or should realize are likely to affect, the conduct of another in a manner that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another. . . .

“. . . Although Morgan [the defendant] said his only intent was to amuse his friends, and he denied that he intended to frighten or harm Vetter, she testified that she was very, veiy frightened.’ The record supports a reasonable inference that Morgan should have realized Vetter would be frightened and that it was foreseeable that her fright would create a risk of harm.” 22 Kan. App. 2d at 5-6.

The Vetter court then concluded that the facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, might be read to show that the defendant’s actions pi'oximately caused Vetter’s injuries. Thus, the court held that plaintiff s negligence claim should be brought *763before a jury-, and so it was error for the trial court to dismiss the action. 22 Kan. App. 2d at 6-7.

The Court of Appeals found that Vetter stood for the proposition that a negligence action may be brought to recover from “the unintended results of the intentional acts.” Baska, slip op. at 14. The court then used this rationale to hold that the facts in this case supported Baska’s negligence claim, since defendants Madrigal and Scherzer did not intend to strike her.

Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, Vetter does not provide support for Baska’s negligence claim in the case we now consider. There was no question in Vetter that the defendant did not intend to frighten the plaintiff; instead, the Vetter court made clear that his actions were negligent — although they were not intended to cause injury, they created a foreseeable risk of harm. See Vetter, 22 Kan. App. 2d at 5-6. The facts in Vetter contrast sharply with the facts in this case. Vetter engaged in a prank but did not intend to frighten the plaintiff. Defendants Madrigal and Scherzer engaged in a fight, intending to harm one another. As the comment to the Restatement explains: “All consequences which the actor desires to bring about are intended.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A, comment b. Vetter did not intend to frighten the plaintiff, but it was foreseeable that his intentional actions would frighten the plaintiff. Defendants Madrigal and Scherzer intended to punch someone (the other defendant) and did punch someone (the plaintiff). Although their actions were not specifically directed at the plaintiff, their punches were intentional acts and did injure Baska.

The exact scenario presented in this case was described in the Corpus Juris Secondum as a “text book” example of transferred intent:

“ ‘It is not necessary, to constitute an assault and battery, that there be a specific intention of striking or otherwise injuring plaintiff. If defendant unlawfully aims at one person and hits another, [under the doctrine of transferred intent] he is guilty of assault and battery on the person hit, the injury being the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the wrongful act. So, if one of two persons fighting unintentionally strikes a third, the person so striking is liable in an action by the third person for an assault and battery.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Morrow v. Flores, *764225 S.W.2d 621, 624 (Tex. Civ. App. 1949, reh. denied January 6, 1950) (quoting 6 C.J.S., Assault and Battery § 10[2], p. 804).

The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case holds that for a tort to be considered intentional, it must cause injury to the person at whom it was directed. In other words, a defendant must have a specific intent to commit the battery on the plaintiff to be liable to the plaintiff for battery; otherwise the defendant may be liable to the plaintiff in negligence. Its decision is contrary to tire law of Kansas expressed in Laurent, Byrum, and Hackenberger, and to the provisions regarding transferred intent included in the Restatement (Second) of Torts and other authorities.

The defendants’ acts of throwing punches in this case were intentional actions. Each defendant intended to strike at tire other in order to cause harm. The defendants intended to punch, and they did punch. The fact that the punches in question hit the plaintiff rather than the defendants is immaterial to the analysis. Because the defendants’ actions were intentional, the “substance” of Baska’s action is one for assault and battery. Failure to initiate her action within 1 year of the fight bars her action by reason of die 1-year statute of limitations in K.S.A. 60-514(b).

The Court of Appeals stated that “[ojther courts have suggested a similar approach.” Baska, slip op. at 11. However, the court cited only one opinion from the Maryland Court of Appeals that purportedly supported its position; in fact, the Baska decisión cited seven opinions of other jurisdictions which held under such circumstances that the statute of limitations for assault and battery applied. See slip op. at 11-12. Moreover, the Maiyland case cited by the Court of Appeals, Ghassemieh v. Schafer, 52 Md. App. 31, 447 A.2d 84, cert. denied 294 Md. 543 (1982), fails to support its decision in this case.

In Ghassemieh, a teacher brought claims for both battery and negligence against a student for injuries the teacher received when the student pulled the chair out from under her. The Maryland court held that the plaintiff could bring her negligence claim even when the act of pulling the chair out from under her was intentional. The court explained: “We see no reason why an intentional *765act that produces unintended consequences cannot be a foundation for a negligence action.” 52 Md. App. at 42. All agreed the defendant did not intend to injure the plaintiff with the prank. The court noted that “an intentional act — the pulling away of the chair — had two possible consequences: the intended one of embarrassment and the unintended one of injury.” (Emphasis added.) 52 Md. App. at 42-43. However, the court found that because the plaintiff had failed to request a negligence instruction, she could not appeal the verdict for the defendant on the negligence claim. 52 Md. App. at 43.

The language cited in Ghassemieh, though inconsequential to its holding in light of the plaintiff s failure to request an instruction on the issue, is quite similar to the Kansas Court of Appeals’ decision in Vetter. The defendants in both cases did not intend to injure the plaintiff with the prank; however, foreseeable injury resulted. Neither Vetter nor Ghassemieh presents a situation that involves transferred intent and neither case provides a reason to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in this case.

A similar pleading question was considered by the Ohio Supreme Court in Love v. Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St. 3d 98, 524 N.E.2d 166 (1988). There, Love was arrested and handcuffed by Hickman, a Port Clinton police officer. Love later sued the city, claiming that Hickman used improper police procedures and injured him. The trial court granted Hickman’s motion to dismiss based on the fact that Ohio’s 1-year statute of limitations for assault and battery had run. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, finding that “further development of the facts could show that Hickman acted negligently in handcuffing Love. If such could be shown, . . . plaintiff should have received the benefit of the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury.” 37 Ohio St. 3d at 98.

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that “ ‘courts must look to the actual nature or subject matter of the case, rather than to the form in which the action is pleaded. The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial.’ ” 37 Ohio St. 3d at 99 (quoting Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St. 3d 179, 183, 465 N.E.2d 1298 [1984]). The *766court found that “the specific acts of Officer Hickman — ’subduing’ and 'handcuffing’ — are acts of intentional contact which, unless privileged, constitute a battery.” 37 Ohio St. 3d at 99. “Love’s complaint against Hickman alleges, in substance, an action in battery and is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.” 37 Ohio St. 3d at 100. The court explained:

“Where the essential character of an alleged tort is an intentional, offensive touching, the statute of limitations for assault and battery governs even if the touching is pled as an act of negligence. To hold otherwise would defeat the assault and battery statute of limitations. Nearly any assault and battery can be pled as a claim in negligence. . . . ’[T]hrough clever pleading or by utilizing another theory of law, the assault and battery cannot be [transformed] into another type of action subject to a longer statute of limitations as it would circumvent the statute of limitations for assault and battery to allow that to be done.’” 37 Ohio St. 3d at 99-100 (quoting Grimm v. White, 70 Ohio App. 2d 201, 203, 435 N.E.2d 1140 [1980]).

Conclusion

The undisputed facts in this case show that the defendants intended to strike and cause harm to one another. When Baska intervened and stepped between the two boys, she was “unintentionally” struck by punches intended for the defendants. Had the defendants struck each other and brought suit, they would be liable to one another for assault and battery. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, which has long been recognized in this state, the fact that the defendants struck the plaintiff does not change the fact that their actions (punching) were intentional. Moreover, the fact that Baska’s petition describes her claims against the defendants as actions for negligence does not alter the nature of those claims, which the law recognizes as claims for intentional torts of assault and battery. The trial court correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the district court is reversed, and the decision of the district court is affirmed.

Johnson, J., not participating.

Lockett, J., Retired, assigned.

Shea, J.

This appeal raises questions relating to the civil liability of one who, without having any intention to cause confinement, knowingly gives false information to (Ke police which results in the arrest or detention of another. The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment in the first count and for a violation of his civil rights in the second count of the complaint. After a trial to the court judgment was rendered for the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed, claiming error in the disposition of both counts.

There is no dispute about the unusual circumstances giving rise to this suit and they may be summarized as follows: On January 26, 1978, the named defendant (hereinafter the defendant), who was at that time emotionally disturbed, shot himself in the shoulder while he was at his place of employment, a package store in West Haven. He contacted the local police and when they arrived he said that he had been robbed and shot by a black male wearing a green jacket and a blue hat, that his assailant had a medium skin tone, a round face, a medium build and was about five feet ten inches in *267height. He lied to the police because he could not tolerate admitting that he had shot himself.

Wholly by chance the police picked up the plaintiff, a black man who was wearing a green jacket, and brought him to the defendant. When the defendant did not identify him, the plaintiff was released. He was detained by the police for approximately ten minutes and suffered no other harm as a result of the incident. In a subsequent interview with the police at the hospital the defendant admitted that he had shot himself because of an emotional disturbance resulting from a marital dispute and that his report of the robbery was a hoax. He was arrested and prosecuted for giving false information to the police.

The trial court concluded that, despite the unpleasant and embarrassing experience which the plaintiff suffered as a result of the defendant’s wrongful conduct, the law afforded no relief. We agree with this conclusion.

I

False imprisonment, or false arrest, is the unlawful restraint by one person of the physical liberty of another. Felix v. Hall-Brooke Sanitarium, 140 Conn. 496, 499, 101 A.2d 500 (1953). Any period of such restraint, however brief in duration, is sufficient to constitute a basis for liability. 32 Am. Jur. 2d, False Imprisonment §14. The fact that there was no formal arrest of the plaintiff in this case and that he remained in the custody of the police for only ten minutes would not necessarily defeat his cause of action for false imprisonment. 1 Restatement (Second), Torts §41.

*268False imprisonment comes within the category of intentional torts for which the remedy at common law was an action of trespass. McGann v. Allen, 105 Conn. 177, 188, 134 A. 810 (1926). “A person is not liable for false imprisonment unless his act is done for the purpose of imposing a confinement, or with knowledge that such confinement will, to a substantial certainty, result from it.” 32 Am. Jur. 2d, False Imprisonment § 9; 1 Restatement (Second), Torts § 35. The facts found by the trial court, which are not challenged, negate any intention on the part of the defendant to bring about the detention of the plaintiff, or, indeed, of anybody. See 1 Restatement (Second), Torts §43. His contrivance of the bogus robbery was found to have been motivated solely by his embarrassment over shooting himself. The trial court was not compelled to infer from the description he gave to the police that he intended or expected any arrest to result. The cases relied upon by the plaintiff, in which liability was imposed for confinements resulting from false reports given to the police, are distinguishable in that there an intention to cause the arrests was established. Jensen v. Barnett, 178 Neb. 429, 134 N.W.2d 53 (1965); Wehrman v. Liberty Petroleum Co., 382 S.W.2d 56 (Mo. App. 1964).

The plaintiff claims that the defendant should have been found liable for his reckless or, at least negligent, conduct in furnishing false information to the police in violation of § 53a-180 (a) (3),1 which *269imposes a criminal penalty for such an act. Recklessness, in the sense of a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm; see General Statutes § 53a-3 (13); is sometimes equated with intentional conduct in terms of legal consequences. Collens v. New Canaan Water Co., 155 Conn. 477, 490, 234 A.2d 825 (1967); Soucy v. Wysocki, 139 Conn. 622, 628, 96 A.2d 225 (1953); Bordonaro v. Senk, 109 Conn. 428, 432-33, 147 A. 136 (1929). Ip. the context of false imprisonment the label of “reckless” fairly characterizes a state of mind amounting to knowledge that confinement is substantially certain to result from the wrongful conduct but not attaining the proportions of an actual intention to bring it about. Nothing less than this rather extreme brand of recklessness will substitute for the standard requirement of intention in false imprisonment cases. “It is not enough that the actor realizes or should realize that his actions involve a risk of causing a confinement, so long as the likelihood that it will do so falls short of a substantial certainty.” 1 Restatement (Second), Torts § 35, comment h. The facts found by the trial court do not indicate that the defendant’s false report created a virtual certainty that someone would be arrested or that the defendant must have expected such a result. Where there is no intention to cause the confinement of a person or the equivalent variety of recklessness, there is no liability for an act result*270ing in a merely transitory detention which might otherwise sustain an action for false imprisonment. Id., §35 (2).

Negligent conduct which results in a confinement of sufficient consequence to constitute the actual damage required to maintain a negligence action2 is a sufficient basis for imposing liability. 1 Harper & James, Law of Torts § 3.7; Prosser, Law of Torts (4th Ed.) § 30. In Collins v. City National Bank & Trust Co., 131 Conn. 167, 38 A.2d 582 (1944), a plaintiff whose check was negligently dishonored by his bank was allowed to recover compensatory *271damages when he had been arrested on a charge of obtaining money by false pretenses, jailed for two hours, compelled to post a bond for his release, and injured in reputation. Incarceration of even brief duration has been found sufficient to fulfill the requirement of actual damage. Weaver v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn., 30 Cal. Rptr. 4, 380 P.2d 644 (1963); Mouse v. Central Savings & Trust Co., 120 Ohio St. 599, 167 N.E. 868 (1929). The complaint in this suit, however, cannot be read so broadly as to include such a cause of action, since it contains no allegation of negligence or damages suffered as a result of the plaintiff’s misdeed in “knowingly and wilfully” making a false *272statement. “A plaintiff may not allege one canse of action and recover npon another.” Malone v. Stein-berg, 138 Conn. 718, 721, 89 A.2d 213 (1952).

II

In the second count of his complaint the plaintiff relies upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which provides in part that “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, or any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured.” For liability to be imposed under the statute it is essential to prove that the actions complained of were taken “under color” of law. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970); Henig v. Odorioso, 385 F.2d 491, 494 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1016, 88 S. Ct. 1269, 20 L. Ed. 166 (1968). “Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken ‘under color of’ state law.” United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S. Ct. 1031, 85 L. Ed. 1368 (1941). “To act ‘under color’ of law does not require that the (defendant) be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.” United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794, 86 S. Ct. 1152, 16 L. Ed. 2d 267 (1966).

In this case the lack of any intention on the part of the defendant to bring about any arrest or detention would preclude a finding that he had acted in concert with the police in causing the plaintiff to be *273detained. Since he was not a willing participant in the deprivation of the constitutional rights claimed by the plaintiff, his wrongful conduct was not “under color” of state law and he is not liable under § 1983.

There is no error.

In this opinion Speziale, C. J., Armentano and Covello, Js., concurred.

Parskey, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). Except for its discussion of negligent conduct I have no quarrel with the court’s opinion. In fact, because the complaint alleges intentional rather than negligent conduct, this would furnish a sufficient basis for rejecting a recovery based on a cause of action sounding in negligence. But when the majority categorically states that in order to recover in a negligence action the plaintiff must allege and prove actual damage, it is at that point that we part company because this statement is contrary to Connecticut law.

In Hageman v. Freeburg, 115 Conn. 469, 162 A. 21 (1932), a case involving a negligence action for personal injuries, speaking through Chief Justice Maltbie, we stated (pp. 471-72) “every invasion of a legal right imports damage.” We followed this holding in Urban v. Hartford Gas Co., 139 Conn. 301, 93 A.2d 292 (1952), which also involved a negligence action for personal injuries, with the further observation (pp. 306-307) that “[t]he wrong to Mrs. Urban became actionable when her legal right was invaded by the intentional or negligent violation of duty on the defendant’s part.” In neither case was a showing of aetual damage made an essential requirement of the negligence *274action.1 That this was not an oversight can be gleaned by the comment by Toelle in “The Urban Case,” 27 Conn. B.J. 74, 79 (1953) and the oblique footnote in 2 Harper & James, Torts § 25.1, n.4. Hageman and Urban state the common law of this state. Until and unless they are overruled, if stare decisis represents anything more than flash paper, they must be followed, the ancient common law and the pronouncements of eminent academicians to the contrary notwithstanding.

An invasion of a person’s legal rights, whether occasioned by trespass or negligence, by intentional or unintentional conduct, should have the same legal consequences. If invasions of one’s rights by assault and battery without actual damages are actionable; Petrucelli v. Catapano, 107 Conn. 122, 123, 139 A. 634 (1927); and if invasions by negligent assault and battery are also actionable; Sansone v. Bechtel, 180 Conn. 96, 99, 429 A.2d 820 (1980); Russo v. Porga, 141 Conn. 706, 708-709, 109 A.2d 585 (1954); Lentine v. McAvoy, 105 Conn. 528, 530-31, 136 A. 76 (1927); then what manner of legal logic excludes invasions by other negligent conduct?

The fact is the different treatment of intentional and negligent acts in the old common law is due neither to logic nor experience but rather to procedural history. Actions of trespass were treated differently from actions of trespass on the case. As Holmes cogently observed in The Common Law (Howe Ed.) (p. 64) “[i]n place of a theory of tort, we have a theory of trespass. And even within *275that narrower limit, precedents of the time of the assize and jurata have been applied without a thought of their connection with a long forgotten procedure.” While legal history should not be sloughed off, neither should it command our slavish obedience. To replace our own soundly reasoned law on the basis of ancient pronouncements founded on arcane common law concepts of forms of action is to replace reason with rote.

With the exceptions noted I respectfully record my concurrence.

I’Anson, C.J. delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff, Danny Lee Womack, instituted this action against the defendant, Rosalie Eldridge, to recover compensatory and punitive damages for mental shock and distress allegedly caused by the defendant’s willful, wanton, malicious, fraudulent and deceitful acts and conduct toward him. The question of punitive damages was stricken by the trial court and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $45,000. The trial court set aside the verdict non obstante veredicto on the ground that there could be no recovery for emotional distress in the absence *339of “physical damage or other bodily harm.” We granted plaintiff a writ of error. Defendant did not assign cross-error, although the record shows she excepted to many rulings in the court below and several of them are relied upon in her brief and argument before us.

Plaintiff assigned numerous errors, but the controlling question is whether one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress absent any bodily injury.

The evidence shows that defendant had been engaged in the business of investigating cases for attorneys for many years. She was employed by Richard E. Seifert and his attorney to obtain a photograph of the plaintiff to be used as evidence in the trial of Seifert, who was charged with sexually molesting two young boys. On May 27, 1970, about 8 a.m., defendant went to plaintiffs home and upon gaining admittance told him that she was a Mrs. Jackson from the newspaper and that she was writing an article on Skateland. Defendant asked plaintiff, who was a coach at Skateland, if she could take a picture of him for publication with the article, and he readily consented.

Shortly thereafter defendant delivered the photograph to Seifert’s counsel while he was representing Seifert at his preliminary hearing. Seifert’s counsel showed plaintiff’s photograph to the two young boys and asked if he was the one who molested them. When they replied that he was not, counsel withdrew the photograph and put it in his briefcase. However, the Commonwealth’s Attorney then asked to see the photograph and requested additional information about the person shown in it. Defendant was then called to the stand and she supplied the plaintiff’s name and address. Plaintiff’s photograph in no way resembled Seifert, and the only excuse given by defendant for taking plaintiff’s picture was that he was at Skateland when Seifert was arrested. However, the offenses alleged against Seifert did not occur at Skateland.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney then directed a detective to go to plaintiff’s home and bring him to court. The detective told plaintiff that his photograph had been presented in court; that the Commonwealth’s Attorney wanted him to appear at the proceedings; and that he could either appear voluntarily then or he would be summoned. Plaintiff agreed to go voluntarily. When *340called as a witness, plaintiff testified as to the circumstances under which defendant had obtained his photograph. He also said that he had not molested any children and that he knew nothing about the charges against Seifert.

A police officer questioned plaintiff several times thereafter. Plaintiff was also summoned to appear as a witness before the grand jury but he was not called. However, he was summoned to appear several times at Seifert’s trial in the circuit court because of continuances of the cases.

Plaintiff testified that he suffered great shock, distress and nervousness because of defendant’s fraud and deceit and her wanton, willful and malicious conduct in obtaining his photograph and turning it over to Seifert’s attorney to be used in court. He suffered great anxiety as to what people would think of him and feared that he would be accused of molesting the boys. He had been unable to sleep while the matter was being investigated. While testifying in the instant case he became emotional and incoherent. Plaintiff’s wife also testified that her husband experienced great shock and mental depression from the involvement.

The precise issue presented on this appeal has not been decided by this court.

In the recent case of Hughes v. Moore, 214 Va. 27, 31, 197 S.E.2d 214, 219 (1973), where we also clarified Bowles v. May, 159 Va. 419, 437-38, 166 S.E. 550, 557 (1932), we held that when conduct is merely negligent, not willful, wanton or vindictive, and physical impact is lacking, there can be no recovery for emotional disturbance alone. However, where emotional disturbance is accompanied by physical injury there may be a recovery for negligent conduct, notwithstanding the lack of physical impact, provided the injured party proves by clear and convincing evidence a causal connection between the negligent act, the emotional disturbance and the physical injury.

We have also said that a recovery is permitted for mental distress and physical injuries unaccompanied by actual physical contact where the injuries were caused by a willful, intentional tort. Moore v. Jefferson Hospital, Inc., 208 Va. 438, 441, 158 S.E.2d 124, 127 (1967).

The case of Awtrey v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 121 Va. 284, 93 S.E. 570 (1917), relied upon by the defendant, is distinguishable on the facts from the present case. There, liability was based on *341a negligent wrongful act; here, liability is based on willful, wanton, fraudulent and deceitful conduct.

Courts from other jurisdictions are not in accord on whether there can be a recovery for emotional distress unaccompanied by physical injury. However, most of the courts which have been presented with the question in recent years have held that there may be a recovery against one who by his extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes another severe emotional distress.1 Annot., 64 A.L.R.2d 100, § 8 at 120, and the many cases there cited.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46 at 71, provides:

“(1) One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm.”

In comment (i) to the Restatement it is expressly stated that this rule also covers a situation where the actor knows that distress is certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct.

A great majority of cases allowing recovery for such a cause of action do so when the act was intentional and the wrongdoer desired the emotional distress or knew or should have known that it would likely result. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Burton, 104 Ind.App. 576, 580, 12 N.E.2d 360, 362 (1938); Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So.2d 188, 189 (Fla. 1950); Boyle v. Chandler, 33 Del. 323, 329, 138 A. 273, 276 (1927); Samms v. Eccles, 11 Utah 2d 289, 293, 358 P.2d 344, 346-47 (1961); Prosser on Torts, “Infliction of Mental Distress,” § 12 at 60 (4th ed. 1971).

In Samms, the Supreme Court of Utah aptly stated:

“. . . [T]he best considered view recognizes an action for severe emotional distress, though not accompanied by bodily impact or physical injury, where the defendant intentionally engaged in some conduct toward the plaintiff, (a) with the purpose of inflicting emotional distress, or, (b) where any reasonable person would have known that such would result; and his actions are of such a nature as to be considered outrageous and intolerable in that they offend against the *342generally accepted standards of decency and morality.” (Footnote omitted; emphasis added.) 11 Utah 2d at 293, 358 P.2d at 346-47.

We adopt the view that a cause of action will lie for emotional distress, unaccompanied by physical injury, provided four elements are shown: One, the wrongdoer’s conduct was intentional or reckless. This element is satisfied where the wrongdoer had the specific purpose of inflicting emotional distress or where he intended his specific conduct and knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result. Two, the conduct was outrageous and intolerable in that it offends against the generally accepted standards of decency and morality. This requirement is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved. Three, there was a causal connection between the wrongdoer’s conduct and the emotional distress. Four, the emotional distress was severe.

“It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the defendant’s conduct may reasonably be regarded as so extreme and outrageous as to permit recovery, or whether it is necessarily so. Where reasonable men may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the control of the court, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct has been sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, at 77.

In the case at bar, reasonable men may disagree as to whether defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous and whether plaintiff’s emotional distress was severe. Thus, the questions presented were for a jury to determine. A jury could conclude from the evidence presented that defendant willfully, recklessly, intentionally and deceitfully obtained plaintiff’s photograph for the purpose of permitting her employers to use it as a defense in a criminal case without considering the effect it would have on the plaintiff. There is nothing in the evidence that even suggests that plaintiff may have been involved in the child molesting cases. The record shows that the only possible excuse for involving the plaintiff was that Seifert was arrested at the place where plaintiff was employed. A reasonable person would or should have recognized the likelihood of the serious mental distress that would be caused in involving an innocent person in child molesting cases. If the two boys had hesitated in answering *343that the man in the photograph was not the one who had molested them, it is evident that the finger of suspicion would have been pointed at the plaintiff.

Defendant contended in her brief, and in oral argument before us, that the trial court erred in granting instruction 1-A in that it was contradictory and misled the jury; that the amount of damages fixed by the jury was excessive; and that the action of the Commonwealth’s Attorney in causing plaintiff’s name to be revealed was an intervening cause which absolved her of any liability.

We will not consider those contentions because defendant did not assign cross-error. Beasley v. Barnes, 201 Va. 593, 598, 113 S.E.2d 62, 65 (1960); Blue Ridge Poultry and Egg Co., Inc. v. Clark, 211 Va. 139, 141, 176 S.E.2d 323, 325 (1970); Rule 5:7, Rules of Court.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court below is reversed, the jury verdict reinstated, and final judgment hereby entered for the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, jury verdict reinstated, and final judgment.

*720The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wertz, J.:

This was an action to recover damages for an alleged trespass. Plaintiff (appellant) in her petition alleged she was the owner of certain described real estate, and defendant (appellee), without her permission hired and caused the Arborfield Tree Surgery Company, its agents and employees, to go upon her property and top off, injure and in effect destroy three cedar trees of the válue of $150 each, which trees were growing upon plaintiff’s property and were both shade and ornamental in their presence. Plaintiff further stated she was entitled under the provisions of G. S. 1949, 21-2435, to recover from the defendant by reason of the matters hereinbefore set out three times the value of the plaintiff’s property thus injured and destroyed. Defendant answered by way of a general denial.

Plaintiff’s evidence disclosed that she and defendant owned adjoining residences and were neighbors for about five years. On September 8, 1950, defendant without her permission employed a tree surgery company to go upon plaintiff’s property and top three cedar trees. The trees were located some two or three feet north of plaintiff’s south boundary line. The trees before being topped were twenty to twenty-five feet high, and were as she wanted them on her property. About ten feet were cut off the tops of the trees, and from such topping the trees would never grow any higher, and she didn’t want them to stop growing. Cedars are not pruned from the top, but are feathered and shaped and not cropped. She considered the trees were, in effect, destroyed by improper pruning. She attached a sentimental value to them as they stood; they served a special purpose, were both shade and ornamental trees and were worth $150 to $200 each.

Defendant’s evidence was to the effect that the trees, prior to the time they were topped, seemed to be dying out at the top and they also contained bagworms; that two or three feet were taken out of the top of one tree and about a foot or so out of the other two; that the work done was beneficial to the trees and that they were not injured. The work consisted of cutting out dead branches and cleaning out bagworms. One of defendant’s expert witnesses testified on direct examination that the cutting away of dead wood tyould not injure the physical condition of the tree. • However, on cross-examination he testified that if the top is taken out, it is the ambition of every bud on the tree to try to take the place of the *721terminal bud which has been sacrificed, but the trunk itself is no longer going to grow in height. Defendant stated that she was mistaken as to the boundary line and believed the trees were on her property.

The case was submitted to a jury which returned a general verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was overruled and the court rendered judgment against plaintiff from which she appeals.

At the outset it may be stated that defendant admits the trespass upon plaintiff’s property. The determinative question on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing plaintiff’s requested instruction to the effect that defendant had admitted the trespass upon plaintiff’s property by topping the three cedar trees and, therefore, she was liable to the plaintiff in damages. In lieu of this requested instruction, the court gave the following instruction:

“You are instructed that the motive of the defendant is not material, and is not necessary that the defendant be acting with malice or wrongful intent in order for plaintiff to recover damages to her trees, if any.

“The plaintiff is entitled to have her trees in such shape, condition and state of growth as she desires to have them, irrespective of the thoughts and wishes of others, and free from molestation by others.

“The defendant has admitted that she had plaintiff’s trees topped and therefore she has admitted the trespass and is liable in damages for such sum, if any, as you find from a preponderance of the evidence plaintiff has sustained.

“In arriving at the value of said trees you may, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence they have been damaged, injured or destroyed, and should take into consideration the cost of replacement and also the sentimental and utility value of the trees.” (Italics supplied.)

From every direct invasion of the person or property of another, the law infers some damage, without proof of actual injury. In an action of trespass the plaintiff is always entitled to at least nominal damages, even though he was actually benefited by the act of the defendant. (52 Am. Jur. 872, 873, Trespass, §47; 63 C. J. 1035, § 225.) Since from every unauthorized entry into the close of another, the law infers some damage, nominal damages are recoverable therefor even though no substantial damages result and none are proved. In Craig v. St. Louis-S. F. Rly. Co., 120 Kan. 105, 106, 242 Pac. 117, it was said:

“For present purposes it may be said that an invasion of a legally protected interest imports injury, and injury is redressed by damages. Quantum of damages depends on extent of injury caused by the invasion. If nothing but the invasion appears, the injury is technical, and is compensated by nominal damages.”

*722In Hefley v. Baker, 19 Kan. 9, it was said:

“An action in the nature of trespass quare clausum fregit may be maintained against a mere wrongdoer, by any person in the possession of the land upon which the trespass is committed, without any reference to who owns the land; and the plaintiff may in such a case recover for whatever loss he sustains, and if no actual loss is shown, he may then recover nominal damages.” (Syl. f 1.)

It is apparent the trial court erred in including the italicized portion in the mentioned instruction, thereby submitting the question to the jury whether plaintiff had suffered any damage by reason of the unlawful trespass, when in fact the jury should have been instructed that damages, in some amount, resulted as a matter of law.

Defendant admits that she committed a technical trespass upon the land of the plaintiff, but contends that had plaintiff chosen to do so, she could have sued defendant at common law for that trespass, and recovered judgment for nominal damages at the direction of the court, and in that event defendant would have had no defense and could have been so punished, no matter how innocent her intent, or that she had actually benefited the property of plaintiff. Defendant further contends that plaintiff’s petition failed to allege a cause of action at common law for trespass but seeks to recover damages under G. S. 1949, 21-2435, which statute reads:

“If any person shall cut down, injure or destroy or carry away any tree placed or growing for use, shade or ornament, . . . being or growing on the land of any other person; . . . the party so offending shall pay to the party injured treble the value of the thing so injured, . . . with costs, and shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.”

We find no merit in defendant’s contention on this point. The petition alleges the facts constituting trespass at common law, that is, that the plaintiff was the owner of certain property and that the defendant without permission or other just cause hired third persons to go upon a portion of plaintiff’s property and top, injure and, in effect, destroy three cedar trees, each of the value of $150, and then sought to invoke the penalty statute, G. S. 1949, 21-2435, to recover treble the damages sustained. Inherent in the statute is trespass. The statute is not applicable unless a trespass has been committed, and then only to certain kinds of trespass, one of which covers the facts involved in this action. Therefore, it follows that under the allegations of the petition for common law damages, no election between common law damages or statutory treble damages was necessary or proper. (Wright v. Brown, 5 Kan. 600.) It cannot be *723said that the erroneous instruction given by the trial court was not prejudicial to the rights of plaintiff. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiff a new trial.

It is so ordered.

OPINION

WARD, Justice.

This is a case concerning trespass to property. The non-negligent defendant appeals from the granting of a judgment non obstante veredicto, which awarded the plaintiff his damages when the defendant in order to avoid a collision with a third party intentionally swerved his own vehicle off of the highway and onto the plaintiff’s property and caused damages thereto. We affirm.

The plaintiff, Roy L. Forman, filed suit to recover for damages caused when the automobile of Armando Ruiz struck a sign and certain personal property on the plaintiff’s premises located on the north side of Alameda Street in El Paso. The plaintiff alleged that various acts of negligence were committed by the defendant and alternatively alleged that the defendant committed a trespass by unlawfully going onto the property leased by the plaintiff where the damages occurred. Upon trial to a jury, the defendant Ruiz was absolved of all acts of negligence but it also found that the plaintiff suffered damages to his property in the amount of $270.00. No issues were requested and none were submitted concerning the plaintiff’s allegations of trespass. After the jury returned the verdict, the plaintiff moved for judgment non obstante veredicto on the grounds that the evidence clearly showed that the defendant intentionally entered the plaintiff’s property and thereby caused him damage. The trial Court granted the plaintiff’s motion and entered judgment against the defendant specifically finding in the judgment that the defendant, Armando Ruiz, having testified that he entered into plaintiff’s premises in order to avoid a collision caused the damage to the plaintiff’s property and was liable.

For reasons not apparent, the parties entered into a stipulation as to the cause of the plaintiff’s damages even though the case was fully developed by their testimony *818at the trial. The stipulation is to the effect that the defendant, with his automobile on or about February 27, 1973, when he was forced to swerve to avoid a collision with a truck, did strike and damage the property of the plaintiff. This indicates on first reading that the driving upon the plaintiff’s land was intentional. This is the interpretation made of the stipulation by the plaintiff on this appeal. This places the defendant within the terms of Section 197, Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides as follows:

“(1) One is privileged to enter or remain on land in the possession of another if it is or reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent serious harm to

(a) the actor, or his land or chattels,

“(2) Where the entry is for the benefit of the actor or a third person, he is subject to liability for any harm done in the exercise of the privilege stated in Subsection (1) to any legally protected interest of the possessor in the land or connected with it, * * * .”

If the action of the defendant was intentional and Section 197 applies, then our case is quite similar to two of the illustrations under Section 197. Illustration 3 is to the effect that: A, an aviator, while carefully and skillfully operating his airplane makes a forced landing on B’s field in the reasonable belief that it is necessary to do so for the protection of himself and his plane. A is not liable for his mere entry, but under the statement in Subsection (2) is subject to liability for any harm thereby caused to B or to B’s buildings, crops or other belongings. Illustration 13 is also applicable: While A is canoeing on a navigable river, he is suddenly overtaken by a violent storm. To save himself and his canoe from destruction, A lands on B’s dock and pulls his canoe up onto the dock. In getting on B’s dock or in placing his canoe there, A damages the dock. Although A’s entry is privileged, he is liable to B for the harm so ■ occasioned, Since the entry was intentional, the actor is liable for the damage resulting therefrom however justifiable the entry, and even though it might have been made to save the actor’s life. The culpable or moral fault, if any, is said to be attributed to the actor’s refusal to pay for the damage done in the course of serving his own interests rather than in what he did. The legal fault centers around the notion that there was an intentional invasion of a legally protected interest. Keeton and Jones, 39 Texas L.Rev. 255. The above would afford a basis for a simple affirmance of the case.

The matter becomes involved however due to the testimony offered at the trial which is not contrary to the stipulation but which adds facts not contained in the stipulation. From this evidence it appears that defendant Ruiz was driving his car westerly in the outside lane of Alameda Street and that a Mr. Woodard was driving a truck in the inside lane westerly just ahead of the defendant Ruiz. The defendant testified that as he approached the truck it suddenly swerved into his lane of traffic forcing him to slam on his brakes and veer to the right. He stated that he “consciously and intentionally turned his wheels to the right to avoid hitting the truck.” He then ran onto the gravel shoulder of the road where he lost all control of his car and continued on to where he struck the plaintiff’s property. The Appellant argues that these facts present an entry or invasion which is both non-intentional and as found by the jury non-negligent. Such an entry fits within the terms of Section 166, Restatement (Second) of Torts, entitled: Non-liability for Accidental Intrusions. That section provides that an unintentional and non-negligent entry on land of another by one not engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity does not subject the actor to liability to the possessor even though the entry causes harm to the possessor. Section 166 was applied in First City National Bank of Houston v. Japhet, 390 S.W.2d 70 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1965, writ dism’d), where the mo*819torist suffered a heart attack, immediately-lost consciousness and his car ran onto the plaintiff’s land. Under such circumstances, the Court held that the weight of authority and better reasoning would prevent liability.

The Appellant would have us apply the rule from the Japhet case to our fact situation. This we are unable to do because of the position adopted by our Texas Supreme Court in Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Vowell Construction Company, 161 Tex. 432, 341 S.W.2d 148 (1960). There, the defendant’s scraper was deliberately and intentionally used to make a cut to a designated sub-grade. The scraper cut the plaintiff’s telephone cable which was underground and the defendant was held liable for the invasion and destruction of the plaintiff’s property right.

A similar situation was presented in Schronk v. Gilliam, 380 S.W.2d 743 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1964, no writ). There, the defendant was held liable for damages to the plaintiff’s land caused by poison dropped from an airplane. The defendant was held to have trespassed upon the plaintiff’s land because he had intended the act which caused the trespass although he did not intend for the poison to fall on the plaintiff’s land.

As pointed out in the Japhet case, in both Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Vowell Construction Company and Schronk v. Gilliam, the defendant intended the act which resulted in the trespass, although there was no intentional invasion of the plaintiff’s property. In each instance, the defendant was held liable. In the case before us, Armando Ruiz intentionally turned his automobile off the road and this caused the invasion of the plaintiff’s property. He intended the act which resulted in the trespass even though he did not intend to invade the plaintiff’s land or inflict damages upon the plaintiff. He is therefore liable.

Possibly some comfort can be afforded the Appellant by Professor Prosser who anticipates that Texas will abandon its present position. Prosser, Torts 4th Ed., at 64. • This is for the Texas Supreme Court to decide.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial Court is affirmed.

OPINION

MAY, Judge.

Terry Garner appeals the small claims court's judgment in favor of Eric Kovalak. Garner raises one issue, which we restate as whether the court erred when it determined Kovalak was not liable to Garner for the damage Kovalak caused to Garner's trees when Kovalak swerved into Garner's yard to avoid a car crash. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Garner and his wife, Elizabeth, own a property in St. Joseph County that measures just over four acres. Along the north and east sides of the property, next to the roadway, are trees that measure twenty to twenty-five feet tall. At about noon on September 29, 2008, Kovalak was driving on the road adjacent to the Garners' property when a brown Cadillac driven by an unidentified driver swerved over the centerline and into Kovalak's lane. To avoid the Cadillac, Kovalak drove onto the Garners' property. Kovalak avoided the Cadillac, but he knocked down two of the *313Garners’ trees. Garner obtained an estimate that removal and replacement of the damaged trees would cost $1,500.00.

On November 25, 2003, Garner filed a small claims action against Kovalak for the damaged trees. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Kovalak in an order that stated simply: “After due consideration, the Court finds that judgment should be and is entered in favor of [Kova-lak] and against [Garner].” (App. at 17.)

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

As an initial matter, we note Ko-valak did not file an appellee’s brief. When an appellee fails to file a brief, we may reverse the trial court’s decision if the appellant demonstrates a prima facie case of reversible error. Wright v. Wright, 782 N.E.2d 363, 366 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Prima facie means “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Thurman v. Thurman, 111 N.E.2d 41, 42 (Ind.Ct.App. 2002). This rule relieves us of the burden of controverting appellant’s arguments for reversal, which is a burden that properly rests with the appellee. Wright, 782 N.E.2d at 366. It does not, however, relieve us of “our obligation to decide the law as applied to the facts in the record in order to determine whether reversal is required.” Vukovich v. Coleman, 789 N.E.2d 520, 525 n. 4 (Ind.Ct.App.2003).

Because the rules of small claims court make trials therein informal, “with the sole objective of dispensing speedy justice between the parties according to the rules of substantive law,” Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(a), we review the court’s procedural and evidentiary decisions with deference. Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 483 (Ind. 2003). However, we review de novo a small claims court’s decisions regarding substantive law. Id. Judgments of small claims courts are “subject to review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Id. (quoting S.C.R. 11(A)).

Garner claims the court should have found Kovalak responsible for the damage to his trees under the theory of trespass quare clausum fregit. 1 Under that theory:

[I]t is necessary for the plaintiff to prove only that he was in possession of the land and that the defendant entered thereon without right, such proof entitling the plaintiff to nominal damages without proof of injury, and upon additional proof of injury to products of the soil, the plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages.

Hawke v. Maus, 141 IndApp. 126,131, 226 N.E.2d 713, 717 (1967).

Garner testified that he and his wife own the land on which Kovalak drove and the trees Kovalak damaged. Garner also testified he did not give Kovalak permission to enter his property on the day of the accident, and he presented an estimate indicating the damage was $1,500.00. Ko-valak acknowledged his vehicle hit two of Garner’s trees. Based on that testimony it appears uncontested that Garner possessed the land, Kovalak entered without right, and $1500 worth of damage was caused to Garner’s “products of the soil.” Id. Accordingly, Garner demonstrated all the elements required for recovery under the theory of trespass quare clausum fre-git.

However, a trespasser cannot be held liable unless a voluntary act caused his entry onto the plaintiffs property. As we explained in Hawke:

*314In order to be liable for a trespass on land ..., it is necessary only that the actor intentionally be upon any part of the land in question. It is not necessary that he intend to invade the possessor's interest in the exclusive possession of his land and, therefore, that he know his entry to be an intrusion. The intention which is required to make the actor liable under the rule stated in this Section is an intention to enter upon the particular piece of land in question, irrespective of whether the actor knows or should know that he is not entitled to enter.

Although it is not necessary that the trespasser intend to commit a trespass or even that he know that his act will constitute a trespass, it is required for trespass that there be an intentional act and an intent to do the very act which results in the trespass.

The driver of an automobile who suddenly loses control of his car because he is seized with a heart attack, a stroke, a fainting spell, is not liable unless he knew that he was likely to become ill, in which case he is to be found negligent in driving the car at all. The same conclusions are reached when the defendant's car is struck by another vehicle and thrown out of control.

Id. at 129-30, 226 N.E.2d at 715-16 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Thus, the question before us is whether Kovalak's act, swerving his vehicle onto Garner's property to miss an on-coming car that had crossed the centerline and entered Kovalak's lane, was "intentional" or "unintentional." Kovalak testified he used both hands to turn his truck right to avoid the Cadillac and he left the road such that the closest his truck came to the Cadillac was "15 to 25 feet." (App. at 14.) Garner cites that testimony as proof Kova-lak intentionally drove onto Garner's property. We disagree.

Kovalak's testimony indicated he was driving on the highway at fifty-five miles per hour when an on-coming car crossed over his lane into the grass on his side of the road and then back into his lane. He claimed he swerved to prevent a head-on collision. The police report indicates the officer "photographed the tire marks left by the unidentified vehicle." (Defendant's Exhibit A at 4.) Kovalak's insurer found he was not responsible for the accident because an unidentified driver ran him off the road. Given those facts, we cannot say the trial court erred in implicitly finding the act of another caused Kovalak to leave the road and enter the Garners' property, and that Kovalak's act was therefore unintentional. See, eg., State v. Magnuson, 488 N.E.2d 743, 750 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (The record contained evidence from which the trier of fact could determine the driver had no time for deliberation, and therefore an instruction on sudden emergency was not unwarranted.), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

Nor can we say as a matter of law that Kovalak's decision to steer his truck to the right to avoid a head-on collision was an "intentional" act. An intentional act is one "resulting for the actor's will directed to that end." Black's Law Dictionary 25 (7th ed.1999). "An act is intentional when foreseen and desired by the doer, and this foresight and desire resulted in the act through the operation of the will." Id. An act done intentionally is also done voluntarily. Id. at 1569. An act is voluntary if it is "not constrained, impelled or influenced by another." Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged 2564 (G. & C. Merriam Co.1976). As a trier of fact could reasonably find Kovalak's action was impelled by the brown Cadillac, we *315decline to hold as a matter of law his act was intentional.

Affirmed.

SHARPNACK, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.