Garratt v. Dailey

Supreme Court of Washington · 1955 · Torts

Tortsbatteryintentsubstantial certaintybatteryintentsubstantial certaintychild tort liability

Facts

Ruth Garratt fell and fractured her hip in her backyard after a lawn chair was moved by five-year-old Brian Dailey. The trial court rejected plaintiff's theory that Brian deliberately pulled the chair out from under her as she sat down, and instead found that Brian had moved the chair, sat in it, then got up and tried to move it back under plaintiff when he saw she was about to sit where it had been. The trial court further found that Brian had no purpose to injure plaintiff, no intent to bring about unauthorized or offensive contact, and no design to play a prank or commit assault and battery. Plaintiff appealed, arguing she was entitled to judgment or a new trial.

Issue

Whether a battery can be established when the defendant did not act with a purpose to injure or offend, but may have known with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit where the chair had been and thus make harmful contact with the ground. Also, whether the trial court's findings were sufficiently definite on that knowledge issue to support dismissal.

Rule

Battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another. Intent for battery exists if the actor acts either for the purpose of causing a harmful or offensive contact or with knowledge that such contact is substantially certain to result; mere realization of a grave risk is not enough. A child is judged under the same battery rule as an adult, though the child's age, experience, capacity, and understanding are material in determining what the child knew.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a family barbecue in Portland, Oregon, eight-year-old Leo Mercer slid a folding stool several feet away after seeing his aunt, Dana Price, turn and begin lowering herself toward the exact spot where it had been. Leo later said he was "not trying to hurt her," but he knew she would sit down immediately and hit the patio if the stool was not there.

If Dana sues Leo for battery, which is the best argument that Leo had the required intent?

Explanation. Battery requires an intentional act causing harmful contact. The required intent exists not only when the actor acts for the purpose of causing harmful or offensive contact, but also when the actor knows with substantial certainty that such contact will result. Lack of a wish to injure, embarrass, or prank does not defeat intent if substantial-certainty knowledge is present. A child may be liable under the same battery rule, though age bears on what the child actually knew.