Garratt v. Dailey_ Intent by BrittanyGibbons


									Garratt v. Dailey; Intent p. 17, SP of Wash 1955 TORT: Facts: Battery P is old arthritic woman suing D, a child of 5+ years. Child pulled chair out from under P and sat in it himself. P fell and broke hip.

Result Below: Remanded back to trial judge where judgment for plaintiff. General Rules: (Intent equals desire or substantial certainty) When a minor has committed a tort with force he is liable to be proceeded against as any other person would be. D must have committed some wrongful act before he could be liable for the appellant’s injuries. Issues: Did D’s actions constitute a battery. Consideration of Intent and its place in the law of battery. At first “No”; on remand “Yes”; “The cause is remanded for clarification, with instructions to make definite findings on the issue of whether D knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been, and to change the judgment if the findings warrant it. “Character of Actor’s Intention. In order that an act may be done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to a particular person, either the other or a third person, the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or the apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced.” The plaintiff failed in her proof that Brian pulled the chair out from under her while she was in the act of sitting. Ruled that he did not have intent to injure nor did he have knowledge that such injury was likely to occur as a result of his actions. On Remand: Judge concluded it was necessary for him to consider carefully the time sequence, as he had not done before. He now found that D pulled the chair out after the woman began to slowly sit down and therefore knew, with substantial certainty, she would sit at that place and injury would occur.



To top