In Krause v. Kuzel, 658 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), the Court stated that for purposes of the Tort Claims Act, "willful misconduct is synonymous with the term 'intentional tort"... King v. Breach, 115 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 355, 367, 540 A.2d 976, 981 (1988). The governmental employee must desire to bring about the result that followed his conduct or be aware that it was substantially certain to follow." Id. at 859. The Court further explained in Krause: The characterization of "willful misconduct" as an intentional tort is at variance with how that term is defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. As normally defined, however, willful misconduct lies on a fault continuum somewhere between ordinary negligence and an intentional tort. No intent to cause the injury is required. To establish willful misconduct, all that needs to be shown is that the actor was conscious of the risk of harm and the risk was high either in degree or probability. The Restatement definition of willful misconduct differs from an intentional tort and the characterization placed on it under the Tort Claims Act in that it does not require that the injury is certain or substantially certain to occur. See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts, 500-503. Id., 658 A.2d at 859.