Garratt v. Dailey
Encyclopedia
Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091
(Wash.
1955) is a famous tort law case that illustrates the principle of "intent" for intentional torts.
.
The trial judge found in favor of Dailey stating that there was no intent to harm the old lady. Garratt appealed to the Washington Supreme Court
.
The issue before the Court was whether a lack of intent to cause harm precludes a battery charge.
" that by moving the chair Garratt would attempt to sit in the chair's original position. That is, the accused must be substantially certain that his action would cause the offensive contact. The absence of an intent to injure or play a joke is not sufficient to absolve the accused of liability. It is necessary for the plaintiff only to prove that the accused had sufficient knowledge to foresee the contact with "substantial certainty".
The Court, noting that a new trial was unnecessary, remanded the case back to the trial court for clarification of the boy's knowledge at the time. Subsequently, the trial Court found in favor of Garratt and was affirmed by the state Supreme Court.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(Wash.
Washington Supreme Court
The Washington Supreme Court is the highest court in the judiciary of the U.S. state of Washington. The Court is composed of a Chief Justice and eight Justices. of the Court are elected to six-year terms...
1955) is a famous tort law case that illustrates the principle of "intent" for intentional torts.
Background
Dailey, a 5-year-old boy, moved a lawn chair that he believed Ruth Garratt was going to sit down in. When she did, she fell, sustaining injuries. Garratt brought an action against the child for batteryBattery (tort)
At common law, battery is the tort of intentionally and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them . Unlike assault, battery involves an actual contact...
.
The trial judge found in favor of Dailey stating that there was no intent to harm the old lady. Garratt appealed to the Washington Supreme Court
Washington Supreme Court
The Washington Supreme Court is the highest court in the judiciary of the U.S. state of Washington. The Court is composed of a Chief Justice and eight Justices. of the Court are elected to six-year terms...
.
The issue before the Court was whether a lack of intent to cause harm precludes a battery charge.
Ruling
Relying on the definition of battery from the Restatement of Torts, the Court held that battery could only be found if it is shown that the boy knew with "substantial certaintySubstantial Certainty Doctrine
In law, the substantial certainty doctrine is the assumption of intent even if the actor did not intend the result, but knew with substantial certainty the effect would occur as a result of his action....
" that by moving the chair Garratt would attempt to sit in the chair's original position. That is, the accused must be substantially certain that his action would cause the offensive contact. The absence of an intent to injure or play a joke is not sufficient to absolve the accused of liability. It is necessary for the plaintiff only to prove that the accused had sufficient knowledge to foresee the contact with "substantial certainty".
The Court, noting that a new trial was unnecessary, remanded the case back to the trial court for clarification of the boy's knowledge at the time. Subsequently, the trial Court found in favor of Garratt and was affirmed by the state Supreme Court.