Different places have their own ways of handling intentional torts, which are actions like assault, battery, and false imprisonment. Even though the basic ideas behind these torts are often the same, the details in how they are understood and treated can vary a lot.

Let’s start with assault and battery.

Assault usually means doing something on purpose that makes someone think they will be hurt soon. Battery is when that harmful contact actually happens. But what counts as a "reasonable" fear can change from one place to another.

For example, some states might say you need to feel a strong threat right away for it to be considered assault. Other places might be more lenient. Plus, what counts as consent can also differ. In some areas, activities like playing contact sports might imply that you agree to some level of contact. In others, those activities might not count.

Now, let’s talk about false imprisonment.

Here, definitions can also change. Most places agree that false imprisonment means keeping someone locked up without their permission. However, some focus on needing physical barriers to do this, while others consider mental pressure too.

For instance, one place might decide that making someone scared with threats counts as false imprisonment if it makes them feel trapped. In contrast, another might not agree with this. Also, how long someone needs to be held for it to count as false imprisonment varies; some places might say just a minute is enough, while others want it to last longer.

Next up is intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

The rules for proving IIED can be very different depending on where you are, especially when deciding what “extreme and outrageous” behavior is. Some courts have strict rules, while others allow more leeway, including claims from things like workplace bullying. These differences can make it hard to guess the outcomes of IIED cases.

When it comes to defenses against intentional torts, places also have their own rules. For example, in some regions, if someone hurts another person to protect themselves, they might be completely off the hook in several cases. But in other areas, this might only be true for battery cases.

There’s also the idea of transferred intent. This means if someone meant to harm one person but accidentally hurt another, they might still be held responsible. Different jurisdictions handle this in various ways. This can affect how much money victims might get.

In summary, while the basic rules around intentional torts are similar, different places can have lots of variations in how they are applied. These differences in definitions, standards, and defenses make it complicated to understand tort law in any specific area. Lawyers need to be careful navigating these rules because they can really affect the strategies and results in tort cases.