WI · jury_instructions
Wis JI-Civil 2001
Intentional Versus Negligent Conduct
There is a dispute in this case about whether the conduct of (defendant) in
_______________ (state the conduct in question) was intentional or negligent.
If (defendant) actually meant some harm to follow from a particular act or where some
harm is substantially certain to follow from an act according to common experience, then
(defendant) may be said to have intended the result and (his) (her) conduct was intentional.
Intent requires both an intent to do an act and an intent to cause injury by that act. An
intent to cause injury exists where the actor actually means to cause injury by his or her
conduct or where injury is almost certain to occur from the actor's conduct.
If you find that the defendant intended to cause harm in some way, however great or
small, or that (defendant)'s conduct was almost certain to cause harm in some way, however
great or small, then (defendant)'s conduct was intentional.
If, however, the conduct of (defendant) merely created a risk of some harm to
someone, which may or may not have resulted, then (defendant)'s conduct was negligent as
opposed to intentional.
History
Wis JI-Civil 2001 (1995). ©1995, Regents, Univ. of Wis. Prepared by the Wisconsin Civil Jury Instructions Committee of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference with the University of Wisconsin Law School; posted by the Wisconsin State Law Library with the University's permission.
Provenance
- Source
- wilawlibrary.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
b0e43db25c2074dac7964bf0e55e57e0b75be28172573a0fced0c2819d5b6463
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.