GARRATT v. DAILEY case brief
GARRATT v. DAILEY
Supreme court of Washington
February 14, 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, defendant, a child under six years old, deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that, due to defendant's small size and lack of dexterity, he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time to prevent her from falling to the ground. Plaintiff fell to the ground and sustained injuries and damages. The trial court entered judgment for defendant. 2.PROCEDURAL HISTORY The authorities generally state that, when a minor has committed a tort with force, he is liable to be proceeded against as any other person would be. Paul v. Hummel(1868),43 Mo.119,97 Am. Dec.381; Huchting v.Engel(1863), 17 Wis. 237,84 Am, Dec.741; Briese v. Maechtle(1911),146 Wis 89,130N.W.898; 1 Cooley o Torts(4th ed.)194,§66, Prosser on Torts 1085,§108, 2 Kent’s Commentaries 241; 27 Am. Jur.812, Infants,§90. 3.ISSUE: Did the defendant intent to make such a result? Did he know with substantial certainty that the plantiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been? 4.HOLDING The cause is remanded for clarification, with instructions to make definite findings on the issue of whether Brian Dailey knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been, and to change the judgment if the findings warrant it. 5.REASONING AND RULE The rule that determines liability for battery is given in 1 Restatement, Torts, 29, § 13. And in the comment on clause(a), if the defendant realizes that to a substantial certainty, the contact will result a damage, the actor has the intention which is necessary to make him liable under the rule stated in this Section.
In an action against a
Supreme court of Washington
February 14, 1955 1.FACTS Plaintiff alleged that as she started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, defendant, a child under six years old, deliberately pulled it out from under her. The trial court found that defendant was attempting to move the chair toward plaintiff to aid her in sitting down in the chair and that, due to defendant's small size and lack of dexterity, he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time to prevent her from falling to the ground. Plaintiff fell to the ground and sustained injuries and damages. The trial court entered judgment for defendant. 2.PROCEDURAL HISTORY The authorities generally state that, when a minor has committed a tort with force, he is liable to be proceeded against as any other person would be. Paul v. Hummel(1868),43 Mo.119,97 Am. Dec.381; Huchting v.Engel(1863), 17 Wis. 237,84 Am, Dec.741; Briese v. Maechtle(1911),146 Wis 89,130N.W.898; 1 Cooley o Torts(4th ed.)194,§66, Prosser on Torts 1085,§108, 2 Kent’s Commentaries 241; 27 Am. Jur.812, Infants,§90. 3.ISSUE: Did the defendant intent to make such a result? Did he know with substantial certainty that the plantiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been? 4.HOLDING The cause is remanded for clarification, with instructions to make definite findings on the issue of whether Brian Dailey knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been, and to change the judgment if the findings warrant it. 5.REASONING AND RULE The rule that determines liability for battery is given in 1 Restatement, Torts, 29, § 13. And in the comment on clause(a), if the defendant realizes that to a substantial certainty, the contact will result a damage, the actor has the intention which is necessary to make him liable under the rule stated in this Section.
In an action against a