Torts 8.25.05 Cochran Notes: Garratt v. Daily • “Did he commit a battery?” is not a good issue because that will always be the case. • They are looking to see if he had purpose in the act. • The issue before the court is deciding the legal issues not the factual issue. o Did he have intent, is a factual question • Can you establish intent if he had knowledge that was substantially certain that his act would cause contact or apprehension? • When looking at issue you are trying to ask what the legal issue is of the case. • “Very grave risk” (p.19) is not enough. It has to be almost certain. • Intention can be defined (in part) as “with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contract or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced.” o It can also be defined as done with the intention of bringing about harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension. • It cannot be just the act it has to be the act coupled with something that makes the act wrong. • You can est. by having purpose to hit someone and you can do it by having substantial certainty. You might not always have both but you can use either to prove a battery. • MAKE SURE TO RECOGNIZE THE TWO PARTS OF INTENT • If a person commits an action that causes an offensive contact or apprehension that result sin injuries greater than anticipated, can he be found liable? • In determining whether the contact was an offensive contact that courts judges it from a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s shoes.