Garratt v. Dailey by ankurpatel9

VIEWS: 136 PAGES: 1

									                                   Garratt v. Dailey

                            279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)



Parties:

              Plaintiff – Ruth Garratt – Person who was visiting sister who was
              about to sit down on chair.

              Defendant – Brian Dailey – Child who pulled chair from Plaintiff.

Facts:

        Five-year-old Brian Dailey was visiting P and her sister in the backyard of P’s
home. D moved a lawn chair a few feet sideways in order to sit. P, who was about to
sit on the same lawn chair that D was sitting in, fell to the ground sustaining hip
fracture and other injuries.

Procedural Posture:

      Trial court dismissed P’s claim. P appeals and is asking for damages of
$11,000 or for a new trial.

Issue:

      Whether D had knowledge of the fact that his action of moving the chair
would cause P to fall and become injured?

Holding:

       The court remands the case for clarification over D’s knowledge of his
actions.

Legal Reasoning:

       A battery would be committed if in addition to P’s fall, it was proved that D
moved the chair and that he knew that with substantial certainty that the P would
attempt to sit down where the chair was. Even if there were no intent from the D to
commit harm to P, if he had knowledge of the fact that his actions would cause P
injury would be enough for him to commit battery. Without knowledge, there would
be noting wrong about D’s act of moving the chair.

								
To top