The terms being bandied about pertain to intent or culpability. But, there still must be an actual harm. That’s a separate element. Western legal systems do n

The terms being bandied about pertain to intent or culpability. But, there still must be an actual harm. That’s a separate element. Western legal systems do not do very well with hypothetical future harms. If I build a big tower on my property that is rickety and liable to fall onto my neighbor’s house, there is nothing he can sue me for (with some exceptions explained below) until the tower falls and causes harm. When the harm occurs, we then get into whether I need to have been “negligent” or “reckless” or “malicious” or even “strictly liable” to be held responsible: different torts have different standards. That being said, the legislature can step in to address future harm. In my hypo, it may be through a building code which gives neighbors the right to petition the structure be removed before it hurts someone. There’s also the concept of “nuisance” which night give the adjoining neighbor the right to go to court arguing that the tower — due to its rickety nature and likelihood of causing damage — is reducing his property value. But, generally, future harm is a legislative concern. A legislator can outlaw drinking and driving due to its propensity to cause harm. But, a citizen can’t sue a driver for racing through his streets while drunk unless and until he smashes into you. (Finally, there are some remedies for “imminent harm”... protective orders and the like. But, by “imminent” we means an immediate risk of a serious injury. Climate change does not cut it; a deranged ex-boyfriend making threats, however, might.)