Is Jones liable for an intentional tort due to the emissions from his aluminum smelter?

In the context of intentional torts, liability generally hinges on whether the defendant had the requisite intent to bring about harmful consequences. In the case of emissions from Jones' aluminum smelter, the correct answer highlights that Jones is liable because he intentionally caused the resulting harms.

Intentional torts require that the defendant not only engaged in a deliberate act, but also that the act directly resulted in harmful consequences to another party. The operation of the smelter, particularly the emissions it produces, involves an inherent understanding that such operations can lead to environmental harm and health impacts. Even if Jones did not explicitly desire the specific negative consequences of his actions, his knowledge and control over the emissions suggest that he acted with a level of intent sufficient to establish liability.

Thus, since Jones is engaged in a business operation that he actively manages and has the ability to control, he can be held accountable for the consequences of that operation—specifically, the harmful emissions. In this way, the answer rightly concludes that he bears liability for the intentional tort resulting from his actions.