Final answer:
The statement is false because in tort law, liability can be assigned based on the perpetrator's conduct and the harm caused, regardless of their intent. The concepts of actual malice and fault illustrate that liability is not solely contingent on intent to harm.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a defendant cannot be liable in an intentional tort action, even if he or she meant no harm, is false. In the realm of tort law, liability often depends on the conduct rather than the actor's intent to harm. For example, the concept of actual malice as established in defamation cases implies that one can be held liable despite a lack of intent to cause harm if they acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Additionally, cases like Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. underscore the principle that fault must be proven in defamation actions against private individuals and that states can set their own standards of liability as long as they require some degree of fault.
Under tort law, even if the alleged tortfeasor had good intentions, they can still be found liable if their actions resulted in harm. This is because tort law often considers the objective nature of the conduct and its consequences over the subjective intent of the actor. The principle of not being able to escape punishment purely based on one's beliefs is also reflected in cases where freedom of religion is considered, such as in situations where an individual breaks the law citing religious beliefs as justification.