Which of the following is NOT a requirement to prove a tort?

To understand why the assertion that intent must be established is not a requirement to prove a tort, it's important to clarify what constitutes a tort in the legal context. Generally, a tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another individual, and there are two main categories: intentional torts and unintentional torts (negligence).

In the case of intentional torts, yes, an intent to perform the act is necessary. However, in the case of unintentional torts, which are far more common in situations like negligence, intent does not play a role. For instance, if someone accidentally causes harm through negligence, they can still be liable for a tort even though there was no intent to cause harm.

The other components listed—harm must have occurred, the act must be wrongful, and causation must be proven—are essential elements of tort law. Harm establishes that a person suffered a loss, the wrongful act denotes that a legal standard was violated, and causation connects the wrongful act to the harm experienced. Therefore, establishing intent is not universally required across all types of torts, making it the correct choice in this context.