Gloria is only accountable for an intentional tort of battery if she hurled a rock that struck Merle with the purpose to damage or injure him. This is a "false," statement.
How do intentional torts hold people liable or non-liable?Unintentional accidents that cause harm to people, property, or finances are known as accidental torts.
An unintended tort occurs when the individual who caused the accident did so unintentionally and often as a result of their lack of caution.
If the defendant did not intend to hurt the plaintiff, they cannot be held accountable in an intentional tort case. When someone intends to injure one person but mistakenly harms another, intent may have been transferred.
In order to hold a defendant responsible for an intentional tort, the plaintiff must establish both that the defendant committed the act that resulted in the damages they are alleging as well as that the defendant acted with purpose or that he knew with a high degree of certainty that the action would have an unlawful outcome.
The result of a person's intention to conduct a certain activity, regardless of any harm or damages that may ensue, is intentional culpability.
In other words, someone may plan to do something but not necessarily intend it to be harmful.
Learn more about intentional tort plaintiffs below;
https://brainly.com/question/28605645
#SPJ5
Full Question:
If Gloria threw a rock that hit Merle, she is liable for an intentional tort of battery only if she intended to injure or harm Merle. (T/F)