I have seen plenty of discourse and writing on the subject of intent vs impact when actions lead to harm, particularly in existing interpersonal relationships. The thrust tends to be that it's unreasonable to focus the discussion or conclusions on the intent of the actor rather than the impact the actions had on the other party. Given just those two factors, I tend to agree; the intent of the actor will usually not be nearly as important or worthy of focus. I have also observed that when someone has been harmed, mentioning intent to them is rarely a useful or healthy way for the conversation to proceed.
However, in my experience, those are rarely the only two factors. Often, when I hear an actor talking about "intent", it's a proxy for one or two other concepts that they might not be as capable of perceiving or discussing. When I hear the harmed party talking about "intent", it often indicates they aren't even aware of the other factors. I try to bring those concepts to the forefront when I'm involved in those discussions, regardless of whether I am the actor or the harmed or a third party.
The first is the actor's reasonable expectation of the outcome of their actions. "Helping you was the reasonably predictable most likely outcome" is a much stronger argument than just "I intended to help you". For example, you should catch, or otherwise attempt to help, people falling down from ladders. It is reasonable to predict and expect that the outcome will be a significant reduction in harm. If someone says that you hurt instead of helped, and tries to dismiss your intent to help them, they missed the bigger picture. You didn't just intend to help them, you reasonably and confidently predicted that result. If you find out afterward that the actual impact was to ruin their short film stunt, that is not particularly useful information. Except to not catch that specific person again in that specific location on that specific day, your future behavior should generally not change at all after this interaction. Anyone trying to convince you that you have done something wrong and/or that you should change your future behavior toward others based on that improbable or unpredictable actual impact is themselves a bad actor. They should probably be ignored and possibly also called out. Ditto even if they are just demanding your time to discuss that outcome. They need to do their own introspection into why they are reacting so negatively and how they can respond more reasonably to future such interactions. This extends to a wide variety of other interactions where you could show a video to a third party, up to the point of deciding whether to act, and get widespread consensus on the appropriate course of action, even though specific individuals in specific circumstances would prefer a different action. If someone wants to engage in reasonable rebuttal of this factor, they need to be willing and able to discuss things like information that was available but the actor ignored, a lack of commonly available life experience, etc.
The second is what alternatives were available. Given a choice between a few actions (or inaction), all of which will harm someone(s), you aren't doing wrong by choosing the [probable; see above] least harm option, or the option you prefer if the harms are indistinguishable or incomparable. I often encounter this when making decisions that affect large groups, where there will be time or money or emotional costs to some of the group for any particular decision. I also frequently encounter this mid-discussion, where disengaging will cause one kind of harm to one person or group (those affected by the subject of the conversation) and continuing will cause a different kind of harm to a different person or group (those involved in the conversation). I sometimes don't have enough information to determine which harm would be greater or even just preferable to the other people. Sometimes that other person subject to harm is myself, and I have to judge between harm to myself or harm to others; the reasonable ways to make that decision are worth a whole separate essay. Anyone trying to convince you that you have done something wrong and should change your future behavior, for no reason other than to harm someone else instead, is a bad actor and should be ignored and called out. Doubly so if the harm to that other person or group would be greater. If they have additional arguments, such as that the harm would be less, or that someone else is more responsible for the harm or better equipped to handle it, then those are much more worthy of engagement and should affect your choices if they are sound. If they are telling you that they would prefer the other option between two harms to themself, that is useful and appropriate feedback that you can and should take into account when dealing with them specifically.
In my experiences and observations, both of these factors tend to hide inside the "intent" half of the discussion. If no one brings them up specifically then they are often implicitly dismissed just as easily as pure intent. If you are in such an interaction, you need to be specific about these two factors when they are relevant, because they can shift the balance of reasonableness tremendously.
This insight and advice is meant for people who want to minimize the harm that they do, maximize the reasonableness of their choices and actions, engage more effectively in communication, and establish all of those as norms. If, instead, you're a normal person, prioritizing the immediate happiness of the people in front of you, this is probably terrible advice for you.
TL;DR: While "I didn't intend to hurt you" is almost never an appropriate response to "You hurt me [and should change your behavior]", the same doesn't hold for "Hurting you wasn't a reasonably predictable outcome" or "That was the least hurtful choice available".
I have seen plenty of discourse and writing on the subject of intent vs impact when actions lead to harm, particularly in existing interpersonal relationships. The thrust tends to be that it's unreasonable to focus the discussion or conclusions on the intent of the actor rather than the impact the actions had on the other party. Given just those two factors, I tend to agree; the intent of the actor will usually not be nearly as important or worthy of focus. I have also observed that when someone has been harmed, mentioning intent to them is rarely a useful or healthy way for the conversation to proceed.
However, in my experience, those are rarely the only two factors. Often, when I hear an actor talking about "intent", it's a proxy for one or two other concepts that they might not be as capable of perceiving or discussing. When I hear the harmed party talking about "intent", it often indicates they aren't even aware of the other factors. I try to bring those concepts to the forefront when I'm involved in those discussions, regardless of whether I am the actor or the harmed or a third party.
The first is the actor's reasonable expectation of the outcome of their actions. "Helping you was the reasonably predictable most likely outcome" is a much stronger argument than just "I intended to help you". For example, you should catch, or otherwise attempt to help, people falling down from ladders. It is reasonable to predict and expect that the outcome will be a significant reduction in harm. If someone says that you hurt instead of helped, and tries to dismiss your intent to help them, they missed the bigger picture. You didn't just intend to help them, you reasonably and confidently predicted that result. If you find out afterward that the actual impact was to ruin their short film stunt, that is not particularly useful information. Except to not catch that specific person again in that specific location on that specific day, your future behavior should generally not change at all after this interaction. Anyone trying to convince you that you have done something wrong and/or that you should change your future behavior toward others based on that improbable or unpredictable actual impact is themselves a bad actor. They should probably be ignored and possibly also called out. Ditto even if they are just demanding your time to discuss that outcome. They need to do their own introspection into why they are reacting so negatively and how they can respond more reasonably to future such interactions. This extends to a wide variety of other interactions where you could show a video to a third party, up to the point of deciding whether to act, and get widespread consensus on the appropriate course of action, even though specific individuals in specific circumstances would prefer a different action. If someone wants to engage in reasonable rebuttal of this factor, they need to be willing and able to discuss things like information that was available but the actor ignored, a lack of commonly available life experience, etc.
The second is what alternatives were available. Given a choice between a few actions (or inaction), all of which will harm someone(s), you aren't doing wrong by choosing the [probable; see above] least harm option, or the option you prefer if the harms are indistinguishable or incomparable. I often encounter this when making decisions that affect large groups, where there will be time or money or emotional costs to some of the group for any particular decision. I also frequently encounter this mid-discussion, where disengaging will cause one kind of harm to one person or group (those affected by the subject of the conversation) and continuing will cause a different kind of harm to a different person or group (those involved in the conversation). I sometimes don't have enough information to determine which harm would be greater or even just preferable to the other people. Sometimes that other person subject to harm is myself, and I have to judge between harm to myself or harm to others; the reasonable ways to make that decision are worth a whole separate essay. Anyone trying to convince you that you have done something wrong and should change your future behavior, for no reason other than to harm someone else instead, is a bad actor and should be ignored and called out. Doubly so if the harm to that other person or group would be greater. If they have additional arguments, such as that the harm would be less, or that someone else is more responsible for the harm or better equipped to handle it, then those are much more worthy of engagement and should affect your choices if they are sound. If they are telling you that they would prefer the other option between two harms to themself, that is useful and appropriate feedback that you can and should take into account when dealing with them specifically.
In my experiences and observations, both of these factors tend to hide inside the "intent" half of the discussion. If no one brings them up specifically then they are often implicitly dismissed just as easily as pure intent. If you are in such an interaction, you need to be specific about these two factors when they are relevant, because they can shift the balance of reasonableness tremendously.
This insight and advice is meant for people who want to minimize the harm that they do, maximize the reasonableness of their choices and actions, engage more effectively in communication, and establish all of those as norms. If, instead, you're a normal person, prioritizing the immediate happiness of the people in front of you, this is probably terrible advice for you.
TL;DR: While "I didn't intend to hurt you" is almost never an appropriate response to "You hurt me [and should change your behavior]", the same doesn't hold for "Hurting you wasn't a reasonably predictable outcome" or "That was the least hurtful choice available".