Garratt v dailey CLASS Notes week 1 TORTS PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief for the first week of torts 1 class....

Description

Hogan VanSickle Garratt v. Dailey Case Name & Citation: Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091

Dailey Garratt

Facts: 1. Brian Dailey is 5 years and 9 months old and is being sued by Ruth Garratt (adult sister of adult next – door neighbor) 2. Dailey removed a chair that Garratt was attempting to sit in 3. Garratt fell to the ground and sustained a fracture to her hip and other severe injuries 4. The trial judge who heard the case the first time was also the trial judge when the case was remanded for clarification. Procedural History: 1. Garratt lost the initial trial court decision and appealed to the Washington Supreme Court 2. Washington Supreme Court determined that Dailey’s age was only relevant to prove what he “should” have known. The court remanded for clarification to the trial court so they could focus on if Dailey knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would try to sit where the chair had been. 3. The trial judge found that Dailey knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit in the place where the chair had been. He entered a judgment of $11,000 which was affirmed on a 2nd appeal.

Arguments: (P) Garratt’s case was based on the allegation that Dailey knew she was in the process of sitting down and he intentionally removed the chair in order to cause harm to her.

Hogan VanSickle Garratt v. Dailey (D) Dailey’s defense was that he took the chair in order to sit down and once he noticed the plaintiff about to sit, he tried to push the chair back underneath her but because of his size he was unable to get it under her in time.

Issue: Can a 5-year-old be held liable for tortuous battery?

Holding: Yes, according to the Washington Supreme Court.

Rule: The law of battery is applied consistent among all people regardless of age. It all boils down to intent. If there is an intent to eventually make contact, then there is a potential tort case for battery. He did not need to intend to physically harm the plaintiff.

Reasoning: Given the timeline Dailey knew/should have known that the plaintiff would be sitting in that chair. He did not have to have intent to injure her to be liable for the damages. If there was no substantial certainty that she would sit in the chair there would be no wrongful act so there would be no liability.

Judgment/Order: the trial court reversed its initial decision and found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered Dailey pay $11,000.

Concurrent/Dissenting Opinions:

Notes/follow-up questions: Why wouldn’t the plaintiff testify as to how or why she fell in her own lawsuit? How do you apply the standard of “substantial certainty” to individuals with mental illnesses?

From Wikipedia: intentionally and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them. Looking at a contact objectively, as a reasonable person would see it, would this contact be offensive? Harmful is defined by any physical damage to the body. A civil case of battery does not take the severity of the injury into account....