Garratt v. Dailey
279 P.2d 1091 · Washington Supreme Court · 1955
Facts
Brian Dailey, a five-year-old child, was visiting in the backyard of Ruth Garratt's home. As Ruth Garratt started to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, Brian moved it sideways a few feet and seated himself in it. He then discovered Ruth about to sit where the chair had been, hurriedly got up, and attempted to move the chair back for her. Due to his small size and lack of dexterity, he was unable to get the chair under her in time, causing her to fall to the ground. Ruth Garratt sustained a fractured hip and other injuries from the fall. The trial court found that Brian did not have any willful or unlawful purpose, intent to injure, or intent to cause unauthorized contact with her person.
Procedural history
The plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, appealed from a judgment dismissing the action by the trial court. The trial court had found that the defendant, Brian Dailey, did not have any willful or unlawful purpose or intent to injure the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought either the entry of a judgment for damages or a new trial from this court.
Issue
The legal question is whether an infant can be held liable for battery when they did not have a willful or unlawful purpose or intent to injure, but their actions led to harmful contact. Specifically, it asks what constitutes the necessary intent for battery, especially when the actor is a minor.
Holding
The court remanded the case for clarification, instructing the trial court to make definite findings on whether Brian Dailey knew with substantial certainty that Ruth Garratt would attempt to sit where the chair had been. The judgment should be changed if these findings warrant it.
Rule
A minor is generally liable for torts committed with force, similar to an adult. Battery is defined as the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another. Intent for battery is established if the act is done for the purpose of causing the contact or with knowledge that such contact is substantially certain to be produced. The actor's age is only relevant in determining what they knew, considering their experience, capacity, and understanding, not to absolve them from liability if intent is otherwise established.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.