The best place for complete law school case briefs and law-related news.
Want to advertise or post sponsored content? contact us at email@example.com
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Garratt v. Dailey case brief summary
v. Dailey case brief summary (Supreme Court of Washington, 1955)
Case Facts--- Brian
years old, pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt. Ruth suffered
a fracture of the hip. Brian said that he had moved the chair to sit
in it himself, then tried to move it back when he realized she was
going to sit, but was late. Medical damages amounted to $11,000.
trial court dismissed the case, claiming Brian did not have
“purpose, intent, or design” to
injure the plaintiff.
the case have been dismissed? Did Brian commit a tort? Was there
damage to the plaintiff, and who is liable for such damage?
(sent back) to the original courts for clarification. They must
decide whether Brian knew “with substantial certainty that the
plaintiff would attempt to sit down and to change the judgment if it
not enough that Brian may not have intended to cause a battery. The
court says that if Brian knew with a substantial certainty that the
plaintiff would try to sit down in the chair that he had moved he had
committed a tort and would be liable. The court does not believe the
lower court examined this when making their decision. He does not
have to act with volition, but has to know with a substantial
what will result in order for negligence
Resulting Rule ---- Affirmed.
In favor of plaintiff in the amount $11,000.
tort to occur,
there does not have to be volition(
the act of making a choice or determining something)
or intent. But instead, there is the substantial certainty of the
consequences that could occur from the action. This knowledge alone
is enough to decide that a tort has been committed. Trial court must
do complete analysis of the tort.
of Actor’s intention: If he did intend to pull the chair away then
battery occurred, trial court said this was not proven.
of Torts: an actor who commits a direct or indirect act which is the
legal cause of a harmful contact with another is liable if: 1) the
act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or
offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or a third
person, and 2) the contact is not consented to by the other or the
other’s consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress, and 3) the
contact is not otherwise privileged.
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
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.