''Garratt v. Dailey'', 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279

P.2d The ''Pacific Reporter'', ''Pacific Reporter Second'', and ''Pacific Reporter Third'' () are United States regional case law reporters. It is part of the National Reporter System created by John B. West for West Publishing Company, which is now par ...

1091 ( Wash. 1955) is an American

tort law A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishabl ...

case that illustrates the principle of "intent" for intentional torts.

Background

Brian Dailey, boy aged 5 years, 9 months, moved a lawn chair on which Ruth Garratt was going to sit down. When she did, she fell, sustaining injuries. Garratt brought an action against the child for

battery Battery most often refers to: * Electric battery, a device that provides electrical power * Battery (crime), a crime involving unlawful physical contact Battery may also refer to: Energy source *Automotive battery, a device to provide power t ...

. 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 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 associate justices. Members of the court are elected to six-year terms. Justices must retire ...

. 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 In American jurisprudence, the ''Restatements of the Law'' are a set of treatises on legal subjects that seek to inform judges and lawyers about general principles of common law. There are now four series of ''Restatements'', all published by the ...

, the Court held that battery could only be found if it is shown that the boy knew with " substantial certainty" that after the chair was moved Garratt would attempt to sit in the chair's original position. That is, the accused must be substantially certain that his action would result in the contact. The absence of an intent to injure or to play a joke is not sufficient to absolve the accused of liability. It is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove only that the accused had sufficient knowledge to foresee the contact with "substantial certainty." The Court, noting that a new trial was unnecessary,Wade, John W. "Cases and Materials on Torts, 9th Edition." ''The Foundation Press'', 1994. Page 9 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.

References

External links

* {{United States tort case law United States tort case law Washington (state) state case law 1955 in United States case law 1955 in Washington (state) United States case law Law articles needing an infobox