Garrett v Dailey

Facts
Five year old Brian Dailey (D) pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt just as she was about to sit causing her to fall and break her hip. Garratt brought suit for personal injuries and alleged that Dailey had acted deliberately. The trial court entered judgment for Dailey and found that he had not intended to injure Garratt. The court nevertheless made a finding of $11,000 in damages in case the judgment was overturned on appeal. Dailey appealed.

Issues
1. In regards to the intentional tort of battery, is the element of intent satisfied if the defendant knows with a substantial certainty that his act will result in a harmful or offensive contact? 2. Can a five year old child be liable for an intentional tort?

Holding and Rule

1. Yes. In regards to the intentional tort of battery, the element of intent is satisfied if the defendant knows with a substantial certainty that his act will result in a harmful or offensive contact. 2. Yes. A five year old child can be liable for an intentional tort. A minor is liable just as any other person when he has committed an intentional tort with force.

Elements of the Tort of Battery

Under the Restatement of Torts an actor who commits a direct or indirect act which is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another is liable if: 1) the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or a third person, and 2) the contact is not consented to by the other or the others consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress, and 3) the contact is not otherwise privileged. Intent requires that 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. A battery would be established if a party acts with substantial certainty that a result will occur. The mere absence of any intent to injure, play a prank on, or embarrass the plaintiff, or to commit an assault and battery on her, would not absolve the defendant of liability if in fact he had such knowledge. If Garratt has proven to the satisfaction of the trial court that Dailey moved the chair while she was in the act of sitting down, his action would patently have been for the purpose or with the intent of causing her bodily contact with the ground, and she would be entitled to a judgment against him for the resulting damages.

Disposition
Remanded for a clarification of findings regarding Daileys knowledge in order to determine whether the element of intent is satisfied.

Spivey v Battaglia

Brief Fact Summary Petitioner suffered a sharp pain, followed by paralysis on the left side of her face, after Respondent put his arm around her in a "friendly, unsolicited hug." Petitioner brought suit against the respondent for negligence and assault and battery. Rule of Law and Holding "...[A]n assault and battery is not negligence, for such action is unintentional, while negligence connotes an unintentional act." Additionally, "negligence is a relative term and its existence must depend in each a case upon the particular circumstances which surround the parties at the time and place of the events upon which the controversy is based."

Case: Spivey v. Battaglia (Florida - 1972) Issue: Whether petitioners action could be maintained on the negligence count, or whether respondents conduct amounted to assault & battery as a matter of law, which would bar the suit under the two-year S/L (which had run)? Holding: Yes, the petitioners action could be maintained on the negligence count, which the jury would decide if the respondents actions are negligent or not. Reasoning:
o o o
an assault & battery is not negligence, for such action is intentional, while negligence connotes an unintentional act. The settled law is that a D becomes liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences, though the exact results & damages were not contemplated Reasonable man test it is not certain that a reasonable man in the shoes of Ds position would believe that the bizarre results herein were substantially certain to follow SC said this is unreasonable conclusion & is application of the rule in McDonald

Class Notes:

Harmful contact is apparent = intentional hug and pulled P towards D and paralysis of face Negligence v. Battery

Negligence is unintentional while Battery requires intent

Two conflicting causes of action let the court decide which one is right and throw out the other C of A

This court looks at the knowledge portion of the intent requirement.

Did D have knowledge with substantial certainty that his conduct would hurt the P

Was it foreseeable by a reasonable person that the result of the Ds actions would have occurred?

o o

Court said no

Negligence v. Intent Where the consequences foreseeable based on the conduct? N At a certain point foreseeablity runs into knowledge of substantial certainty

Where does this occur is not clear

What the court is doing is going on policy, they are at least trying to give the P a chance for recovery through negligence since. The court did not analyze the other way intent can be determined, which the D did willfully and purposely made his actions

Mcguire v Almy

McGuire v. Almy, 8 N.E. 2d 760 (Mass. 1937). Facts: McGuire (P) was a registered nurse and had been employed to care for Almy (D), an insane person, on a 24 hour basis. McGuire knew that Almy, who was kept in a locked room, was insane but otherwise in good physical condition. McGuire had been taking care of Almy for 18 months when Almy had a violent attack. Almy broke furniture and warned McGuire not to enter the room or she would be killed. P entered the room to prevent D from hurting herself. P approached D who held a piece of broken furniture over her head and P was injured. P sued D and the jury entered a verdict in Ps favor and the court entered judgment in Ps favor and awarded damages for tort assault and battery. Issue: Is insanity a defense to intentional torts? Holding and Rule: No. An insane person is judged by the same standards as a normal person. The intent to do the act is the key to a battery and if an insane person can form an intent to do an act he can be liable. The insane person must be capable of forming that intent and must have actually acted upon that intent. The fact that an insane person cannot control his acts is not a defense. Disposition: Affirmed. Notes: There are some exceptions to the general rule that insanity is not a defense to intentional torts. Insanity has been ruled to prevent liability for certain torts that require a showing of malicious intent such as defamation and deceit.

Notes:

Case: Talmage v. Smith (Michigan 1894) Issue: Whether a person which unintentionally injures a trespasser can be held liable for tortuous conduct, in this case A&B? Holding: Yes, the D can be liable for an action of A&B even if the D did not intend to hit the P.
o o o
For example D shots or throws a rock at A and unintentionally hits B Doctrine of transferred intent originally derived from criminal law

Transferred intent applies whenever both the intended tort & resulting harm fall within the scope of the old action of trespass that is where both involve direct and immediate application of force to the person or to tangible property

o
When the D intends any of the writs of trespass and accomplishes any of them, the doctrine applies and the D is liable even if the P was not the intended target When either the tort intended or the one accomplished does not fall within the trespass action, the doctrine does not apply

o
i.e. D committed murder in Ps house and P sought value of house because family refused to live there after the murder

Reasoning:
o o
The right of the P to recover was made to depend upon an intention on the part of the D to hit somebody, & to inflict an unwarranted injury upon some one. Under the above circumstances, the fact that the injury resulted to another than intended does not relieve the D from responsibility

Class Notes: Doctrine of transferred intent carries over in 2 cases:

If D intends to commit a tort of:

o o o o o

Assault Battery False Imprisonment Trespass of Land, or Trespass of Chattel,

Against a person and D commits one of the other torts other than the one they intended then the doctrine of transferred intent applies
o o o o o o
Assault Battery False Imprisonment Trespass of Land, or Trespass of Chattel, i.e. D intends to hit a person with a stick (battery) and ducks and the stick misses (assault) If D intends to commit a tort of:

Against one person and it occurs on another party then the doctrine of transferred intent applies
o
i.e. intend to shot A (battery), but B gets shot

In this case an assault was intended, but a battery was committed ***Doctrine of transferred intent does not apply to the tort of conversion or intentional infliction of emotional distress therefore the original tort and the subsequent tort that occurs can neither be the tort of conversion or IIED

*** The doctrine of transferred intent only carries over if the original intended tort does not occur