|
Garratt v. Dailey---- 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)
Facts
When five years old Brian Dailey (defendant) was in the backyard of Ruth Garratt (plaintiff)’s home, the plaintiff came out and moved to sit down in a chair. At that moment, because of the defendant’s act of pulling the chair, the plaintiff fell to the ground and was injured. The plaintiff’s view of the incident was that the defendant deliberately pulled the chair out from under her and injured her. The defendant’s version of the facts was that he moved the chair beforehand but after seeing the plaintiff was sitting down where the chair had been, he tried to put it back under her but failed to do it. It was discovered that the defendant did not have intent to perform assault and battery or even a prank. The trial court found that the plaintiff’s suffering of the injury was worth eleven thousand dollars. The plaintiff appealed from a judgment dismissing the action and asks for the entry of a judgment in that amount or a new trial.
Issue
Does a child’s act of pulling out a chair under the plaintiff establish intent under the battery if he knew with substantial certainty such act would establish a certain result?
Rules
Character of actor's intention.
In order that an act may be done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to a particular person, either the other or a third person, the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced.
Mercer v. Corbin (1889)
The mere absence of any intent to injure the plaintiff or to play a prank on her or to embarrass her, or to commit an assault and battery on her would not absolve him from liability if in fact he had such knowledge.
Application
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s action in moving the chair constituted a battery- the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another. To consider whether the alleged act constitutes a battery, the court focused on the intent of the defendant. If the act was done for the purpose of causing the contact with knowledge that such contact is substantially certain to be produced, the defendant’s intent could be inferred therefrom. Even if the purpose of the act was to play a prank or to embarrass the plaintiff, the defendant would not be absolved from the act if he knew the consequences of the act with substantial certainty. (Mercer v. Corbin) Here, the trial court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her version of the facts that the defendant pulled out the chair while she was trying to sit on it. Accordingly, it was not provided that whether the defendant knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been. Further findings must be made in order to consider the establishment of a battery. Therefore, the case should be remanded.
Holding
Yes, if the child knew with substantial certainty the consequences of his act, he can be held liable for battery.
Conclusion
Remanded.
Feedback and notes
I was called to brief the case as we began the class. I chose to include the word ‘five-year-old’ in the issue statement because I believed age would be an important characteristic of this case. But there was no mention of the age from my selection of the rules, I realized that the issue-rule sections do not match and had to remove them. Turned out, the age discussion continued throughout today’s class. We took a better amount of time to discuss whether the age matters in the area of battery and to figure out the intent with substantial certainty. The answer we found out was this; in intentional torts, generally, the age does not matter. However, in exceptional cases like this one, mental capacity based on age might be the indicator of whether the defendant knew with substantial certainty the consequences of his performed act. If it is construed from the facts that the defendant indeed knew the consequences of his act, he would be held liable regardless of him being minor. Moreover, there was a question about physical contact. I understood the part that the touch needn’t be directed to the plaintiff’s body. Whatever closely connected to his body would satisfy the element. It was also interesting to learn that even touches with the car or horse that the plaintiff is riding can be unlawful contact and it may constitute battery.
|