How does the Restatement (Third) of Torts view purposeful infliction of bodily harm?

The Restatement (Third) of Torts broadly covers various aspects of tort law, including the intentional infliction of harm. Under this framework, the concept of purposeful infliction of bodily harm is significant because it establishes that a defendant can be held liable even without direct physical contact with the victim. This means that if an individual engages in conduct with the intent to cause harm, they can still face liability for the consequences of that action, regardless of whether they directly touched or harmed the victim physically.

This perspective aligns with the principle that the intent behind the action is what determines liability, rather than just the immediate physical interaction. The law recognizes that harm can occur through indirect actions or even by creating conditions that lead to harm, emphasizing that the culpability arises from the intention to inflict harm, rather than the act of physical contact itself.

In contrast, the other choices either misinterpret the principles of tort law as articulated in the Restatement or limit the scope of its application unnecessarily. The correct framing allows for a broader understanding of how tort liability can be established in cases of purposeful infliction of harm.