Garratt v. Dailey
46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The intent element required for the tort of battery is satisfied if the actor either acts with the purpose of causing a harmful or offensive contact or acts with knowledge that such a contact is substantially certain to result.
Facts:
- Brian Dailey, a five-year-old boy, was visiting the home of an adult, Ruth Garratt.
- While in the backyard, Brian picked up a lawn chair and moved it a few feet to sit in it himself.
- Brian then saw Ruth Garratt about to sit down at the exact place where the chair had formerly been.
- He got up from the chair and attempted to move it back towards Ruth to aid her in sitting down.
- Due to his small size and lack of dexterity, Brian was unable to get the chair under Ruth before she fell to the ground.
- Ruth Garratt sustained a fractured hip and other injuries from the fall.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruth Garratt (plaintiff) sued Brian Dailey (defendant) for battery in a state trial court.
- The trial court, after a bench trial, found for the defendant, Brian Dailey, concluding he lacked the requisite unlawful purpose or intent to injure.
- The trial court entered a judgment dismissing the action.
- Ruth Garratt (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the intent element for the tort of battery satisfied if an actor knows with substantial certainty that their act will result in a harmful or offensive contact, even without a specific purpose to injure or offend?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, J.
Yes. The intent required for battery is established not only by a purpose to bring about the contact, but also by knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact is substantially certain to be produced. The court reasoned that the trial court's finding that Brian Dailey did not intend to injure or play a prank on Ruth Garratt was insufficient to resolve the case. The trial court focused only on whether Brian had a wrongful purpose, but it failed to consider the second definition of intent: knowledge with substantial certainty. A battery would be established if Brian Dailey knew with substantial certainty that Ruth Garratt would attempt to sit down where the chair had been. The court concluded that a child's age is relevant in determining what the child knew, considering their experience, capacity, and understanding. The case was therefore remanded for the trial court to make a specific finding on whether Brian knew with substantial certainty that his action would result in Ruth's fall.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the two-pronged definition of 'intent' in battery law, adopting the Restatement of Torts' formulation. It establishes that intent is not limited to a malicious motive or purpose to harm but also encompasses a cognitive element—knowledge that a particular outcome is substantially certain to occur. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants, including minors, to evade liability by claiming they did not 'mean' to cause harm. The ruling requires courts to engage in a more nuanced factual inquiry into the defendant's state of knowledge, making the actor's subjective understanding (assessed objectively) a central element of the tort.
