Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 748 views

    Garratt v. Dailey

    Uploaded by

    Khalil Hassan Quinan
    The Supreme Court of Washington held that a five-year-old child can be liable for an intentional tort if they act with knowledge that their actions would likely cause harm. Specifically, the court found that the intent requirement is met if the defendant acts with substantial certainty that contact or injury will occur, even if they did not intend to specifically injure the plaintiff. The court remanded the case involving a child pulling a chair out from under a woman, causing her to fall and break her hip, to determine if the child knew with substantial certainty that pulling the chair would cause the plaintiff to fall.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garratt v. Dailey

    Uploaded by

    Khalil Hassan Quinan
    748 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of Washington held that a five-year-old child can be liable for an intentional tort if they act with knowledge that their actions would likely cause harm. Specifically, the court found that the intent requirement is met if the defendant acts with substantial certainty that contact or injury will occur, even if they did not intend to specifically injure the plaintiff. The court remanded the case involving a child pulling a chair out from under a woman, causing her to fall and break her hip, to determine if the child knew with substantial certainty that pulling the chair would cause the plaintiff to fall.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of Washington held that a five-year-old child can be liable for an intentional tort if they act with knowledge that their actions would likely cause harm. Specifically, the court found that the intent requirement is met if the defendant acts with substantial certainty that contact or injury will occur, even if they did not intend to specifically injure the plaintiff. The court remanded the case involving a child pulling a chair out from under a woman, causing her to fall and break her hip, to determine if the child knew with substantial certainty that pulling the chair would cause the plaintiff to fall.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    748 views1 page

    Garratt v. Dailey

    Uploaded by

    Khalil Hassan Quinan
    The Supreme Court of Washington held that a five-year-old child can be liable for an intentional tort if they act with knowledge that their actions would likely cause harm. Specifically, the court found that the intent requirement is met if the defendant acts with substantial certainty that contact or injury will occur, even if they did not intend to specifically injure the plaintiff. The court remanded the case involving a child pulling a chair out from under a woman, causing her to fall and break her hip, to determine if the child knew with substantial certainty that pulling the chair would cause the plaintiff to fall.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Torts Chapter II Intentional Interference with Person or Property 1.

    Intent

    Garratt v. Dailey
    Supreme Court of Washington, 1955. 46 Wash.2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 Justice Hill Facts:

    Five-year-old Brian Dailey () pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt () just as she was about to sit causing her to fall and break her hip. Garratt brought suit for personal injuries and alleged that Dailey had acted deliberately. The trial court entered judgment for Dailey and found that he had not intended to injure Garratt. The court nevertheless made a finding of $11,000 in damages in case the judgment was overturned on appeal. Dailey appealed.

    Procedural History:

    Issue(s):
    1. Whether or not the element of intent is satisfied if the defendant knows with a substantial certainty that his act will result in a harmful or offensive contact? 2. Can a five year old child be liable for an intentional tort?

    Holding(s) and Rules of Law:


    1. Yes. In regards to the intentional tort of battery, the element of intent is satisfied if the defendant knows with a substantial certainty that his act will result in a harmful or offensive contact. 2. Yes. A five-year-old child can be liable for an intentional tort.

    Reasoning:

    Intent requires that 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. A battery would be established if a party acts with substantial certainty that a result will occur. The mere absence of any intent to injure, play a prank on, or embarrass the plaintiff, or to commit an assault and battery on her, would not absolve the defendant of liability if in fact he had such knowledge. If Garratt has proven to the satisfaction of the trial court that Dailey moved the chair while she was in the act of sitting down, his action would patently have been for the purpose or with the intent of causing her bodily contact with the ground, and she would be entitled to a judgment against him for the resulting damages. Remanded for a clarification, with instructions to make [] findings on the issue of whether [] knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair [] had been, and to change the judgment if the findings warrant it. The Court discusses three classes of intent: 1) the intent to commit the act of moving the chair; 2) the intent to injure, embarrass, or cause apprehension; and 3) the intent that may be inferred from what the Defendant knew was substantially certain to result. In this case, it appears that the trial court focused exclusively upon the second category, and dismissed the case when it could not be found.

    Disposition:

    Conclusion:

    Questions/Comments:

    You might also like