Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Case Brief #1

    Uploaded by

    alyssabreann118
    The case examines whether a 5-year-old boy committed battery when he moved a chair as a woman was sitting down, causing her to fall and break her hip. The court found that the boy likely did not intend to commit battery against the woman and lacked knowledge that moving the chair would cause her harm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Brief #1

    Uploaded by

    alyssabreann118
    4 views2 pages
    The case examines whether a 5-year-old boy committed battery when he moved a chair as a woman was sitting down, causing her to fall and break her hip. The court found that the boy likely did not intend to commit battery against the woman and lacked knowledge that moving the chair would cause her harm.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case examines whether a 5-year-old boy committed battery when he moved a chair as a woman was sitting down, causing her to fall and break her hip. The court found that the boy likely did not intend to commit battery against the woman and lacked knowledge that moving the chair would cause her harm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    4 views2 pages

    Case Brief #1

    Uploaded by

    alyssabreann118
    The case examines whether a 5-year-old boy committed battery when he moved a chair as a woman was sitting down, causing her to fall and break her hip. The court found that the boy likely did not intend to commit battery against the woman and lacked knowledge that moving the chair would cause her harm.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Garratt v.

    Dailey
    Supreme Court of Washington, 1955

    Procedural History: Plaintiff sues Defendant for alleged battery. The trial court entered a
    judgment to dismiss the action. Plaintiff Appeals for a judgment in the amount of $11,000 or a
    new trial. Supreme Court of Washington finds no merit to grant a judgment of $11,000 or a new
    trial. The case was remanded to specifically cover the question of Brian’s knowledge of intent.
    On a second appeal, a judgment for the Plaintiff in the amount of $11,000 was affirmed.

    Question(s) Presented: 1. In the initial trial, was it found that the Defendant, Brian Dailey,
    intended to commit the alleged battery against the Plaintiff, Ruth Garratt? 2. What does the
    court consider as the meaning of a battery? 3. Did the Plaintiff prove with sufficient evidence
    that the Defendant moved the chair while the Plaintiff was in fact in the act of sitting down? 4.
    Was there a battery established under the facts as it found them to be? 5. Does the law of
    battery discussed apply to any person regardless of age? 6. On remand, did the trial judge
    conclude that the Defendant knew with absolute certainty that the Plaintiff was attempting to sit
    in the place where the chair had been?

    Trigger Facts: Brian Dailey (age five years, nine months) was with Naomi Garratt when they
    both went to visit the Plaintiff, Ruth Garratt (Naomi’s sister). Naomi and Brian were both outside
    in the backyard when Ruth came outside to talk with Naomi. Brian moved the chair out from
    underneath Ruth which resulted in her falling and breaking her hip while sustaining other injuries
    and damages.

    Plaintiff’s Argument: The Plaintiff came out to the backyard to talk with Naomi and as she
    started to sit down in a chair the Defendant deliberately pulled it out from under her resulting in
    $11,000 in damages.

    Defendant’s Argument: Plaintiff came out of her house into the backyard. During this time,
    Defendant picked up the chair and moved it sideways to seat himself in it. This is when
    Defendant discovered Plaintiff was about to sit down in the chair where it had been before.
    Defendant attempted to move the chair back where it was but was unsuccessful in doing so in
    time to prevent her from falling to the ground.

    Rule: In evaluating the act of intent as it relates to battery the court considers “Character of
    Actors Intention” which says that for an action to be done with the intent to bring about harmful
    or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to someone the action must be done for the
    purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge of the person doing the
    action in which these things are certain to be produced.
    When considering if a battery was established under the facts as it found them to be the
    Court considered that it would not be enough that the act was intentional but the realization of
    the risk of battery may make the actor’s conduct negligent or even reckless. Unless the actor
    realizes that the action of battery will most likely occur then there is not enough intention to
    make him liable under this rule.
    Reasoning: The Court conceded that the Defendant did in fact move the chair but the Plaintiff
    failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the Defendant moved it while the Plaintiff was
    in the act of sitting down. If the Plaintiff could have proved this fact, then the Defendant’s action
    would have clearly been for the purpose and intent of causing harm.
    The Court also conceded that a battery would have been established if the Defendant
    knew with absolute certainty that the Plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had
    been. Without the Defendant having such knowledge of intent to commit assault or battery, there
    would be nothing wrongful about the Defendant’s act in moving the chair and would therefore
    lead to no liability. A finding that the Defendant had no such knowledge can be inferred,
    however, more information is needed as to what knowledge the Defendant had when performing
    the act in question.

    Holding: 1) The trial court held that the Plaintiff failed in her proof and accepted Brian’s version
    of the facts rather than that given by the eyewitness who testified for the Plaintiff. 2) The
    intentional infliction of harmful bodily contact upon another. 3) No 4) No 5) No, It is applicable to
    adults. 6) Yes

    Main Take-Away: The intent of assault and battery has no age requirement, but information
    regarding the knowledge that the person has when performing the action would be necessary to
    obtain in order to reach a verdict.

    You might also like