University:
Creighton University
Course:
LAW 131 | Torts I
Academic year:

2023
Views:

342

Pages:

1
Author:

Karissa Frazier

Garratt v Dailey (Supreme Court of Washington, 1955) Facts: Brian Dailey, a five-year-old and defendant, was in the plaintiff’s yard talking to Naomi Garratt, sister of the plaintiff. Ruth Garratt, the plaintiff, moved to sit in a wood and canvas chair and found that it was no longer beneath her, resulting in a fall and a fracture of her hip. Procedural Posture: Garratt filed battery claims against Dailey, seeking damages in the amount of $11,000. The judge directed the verdict. The plaintiff appealed for a new trial or damages. Issue: Is a battery plaintiff required to prove that the defendant intended injury? Rule: A battery would be established if, in addition to intention of the act, the actor realizes with substantial certainty or should realize that it contains a very grave risk of bringing about the conduct. Holding: Case is remanded for further clarification regarding Brian’s knowledge or capacity for the knowledge. Application: The court found that Brian would need to know with substantial certainty that Garratt would attempt to sit where the chair was placed and/or that the action of moving the chair would result in her fall and possible serious injury. Analysis/Conclusion: The court in this case made a clear and logical decision regarding Brian. At the time, the only testimony was that of Naomi Garratt, the plaintiff’s sister. There was not enough information regarding Brian’s possibility for substantial certainty or intent in the situation.

Garratt v Dailey Supreme Court of Washington, 1955 Notes

of 1

Details

Description

Struggling with your assignment and deadlines?

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock