Indiana Law Journal

Document Type


Publication Date

Summer 2016

Publication Citation

91 Indiana Law Journal 1105 (2016)


The main theme of this Article is that Prosser advanced a mythical doctrine of transferred intent. What Prosser asserted to be the law was not the law when he wrote his article on transferred intent and amended his treatise. The cases he relied on to support his conclusions on transferred intent did not support them. Moreover, despite Prosser’s great influence on American tort law, Prosser’s position on transferred intent is not the law now and should not be. Its consequences are undesirable. Recognition of transferred intent as a basis of liability is due primarily to its inclusion in the First and Second Restatements of Torts. Transferred intent does not and should not extend beyond the Restatements’ rules.