Torts Garret v. Dailey Names of Parties: Brain Dailey (D); Ruth Garratt (P) The Court: Supreme Court of Washington D.C. Date: 1955 Cause of Action: Battery Facts: 5 year old Brian Dailey was visiting the house Ruth Garratt. As Ruth Garratt was sitting down at a table outside, Brian Dailey seemingly caused (intentionally or unintentionally) the chair under Garratt to be moved. Garratt fell to the floor braking her hip. She is suing for 11,000.00$. Differing Allegations (if any): (D) claims that he noticed the chair was moved unintentionally and, after noticing Garratt sitting down, Dailey tried to move the chair back under her, however failing in the attempt being a 5 year-old (P) claims that 5-year-old Dailey deliberately and intentionally removed the chair from under her while she was in the motion of sitting. Prior Procedural History: Initial ruling was in favor of the defendant. Rules: Character of Actor’s Intention – “In order that an act may be done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to a particular person, either the other or a third person, the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced.” Battery – the intentional harm to another. Knowledge Issues: Did Brain Dailey intentionally remove the chair out form under Ruth Garratt causing her to fall? Did the court establish whether or not Brian did it intentionally? Can you establish intent if he had knowledge that was substantially certain that his act would cause contact or apprehension? *Make sure that you look at the words such as, could, might, should, would. Words become important. Courts Decision: Remanded for clarification. Furthermore, Brian Dailey was found to have removed the chair intentionally and 11,000.00$ was awarded top Garratt. Reasoning: The court issues a remand so that the (D) intentions could be further explored. Brian Dailey intentionally removed the chair and thus the Character of Actor’s Intention and battery, holding him responsible. He fulfilled the intentional infliction clause of battery thereby allowing him to be held responsible for the tort. Character of Actor’s Intention: This means that a person has to know what he is doing to another person or third party and know or understand the proceeding consequences for an action to be considered intentional.
Pages to are hidden for
"Garratt v Daily_Brief"Please download to view full document