; GARRATT V. DAILEY, Sup. Ct. of WA, Dept. 2, 1955, 279 P.2d 1091
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

GARRATT V. DAILEY, Sup. Ct. of WA, Dept. 2, 1955, 279 P.2d 1091

VIEWS: 41 PAGES: 1

  • pg 1
									TORTS
GARRATT V. DAILEY, Sup. Ct. of WA, Dept. 2, 1955, 279 P.2d 1091 History: Naomi Garratt, witness, was the only one of the three (Naomi, Ruth, and Brian Dailey) to testify at the trial; Trial court adopted Brian Dailey’s version of what happened; Trial court found Brian did not have intent to effect an assault and battery on Plaintiff Ruth Garratt; Plaintiff Garratt appealed from a judgment dissenting the action and asks for the entry of a judgment for $11,000.00 for her painful and serious injuries and fractured hip Facts: Brian Dailey (5 years, 9 months) was visiting w/Naomi Garratt and Ruth Garratt in the backyard of the Plaintiff’s home on July 16, 1951; Brian pulled out chair and tried to get it back under her, but he was too small Issue(s): Did Brian Dailey intend to hurt Garratt? Holding: Justice Hill remanded it back to trial court for clarification on whether or not Brian knew w/substantial certainty that the Plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been; Schwellenbach, Donworth, and Weaver, JJ., concurring Analysis: Battery would be established if it was proved that Brian substantially knew that Plaintiff was going to sit where the chair had been (in addition to Plaintiff’s fall); If the trial court finds he did, Plaintiff is entitled to recover; If he didn’t, there was no wrongful act by him and the basic premise of liability on the theory of a battery was not established; Brian put a force in motion


								
To top