LAW OF TORTS

10M CASE STUDY

ON
GARRAT v. DAILEY

Submitted By- Submitted To-

Siddharth S Mr. Balakrishna
18DBLAW049 CMR University, School
Date: 12/03/2020 of Legal Studies
 GARRATT v. DAILEY (1955)
Citation: Garratt v. Dailey, 49 Wn.2d 499 (Wash. 1955)

Synopsis of Rule of Law-

Intentionality is central to the tort of battery, and while a minor who has committed a
tort with force is liable as any other would be, a plaintiff must establish that the
defendant committed his or her act for the purpose of causing the harmful contact or
with substantial certainty that such contact will result in harm.

Facts of the Case-

In this case, a 5-Year-old boy named Brian Dailey, the Defendant along with Naomi
Garratt, an adult, visited the home of the Plaintiff, Ruth Garratt, who was the sister of
Naomi Garratt and also an adult, in the backyard of the plaintiff’s home on July 16,
1951. The Plaintiff alleged that she came out into the backyard to talk with her sister
and that when she was about to sit down in a wood and canvas lawn chair, five-year-
old Dailey deliberately pulled the chair out from under her. The defendant claimed
that that he was attempting to move the chair toward Plaintiff to help her in sitting
down on the chair. He maintained that, due to his small size and lack of dexterity, he
could not get the chair under the Plaintiff in time to keep her from falling. The
Plaintiff was injured in the fall and sustained a fracture on her hip. At trial, Garratt’s
sister testified that Dailey deliberated pulled the chair out from under Garratt.

Elements necessary to establish Battery-

A battery is an intentional tort, as opposed to an act resulting from negligence. The

elements to establish the tort of battery are the same as for criminal battery (details
below), excepting that criminal intent need not be present. The elements of civil
battery are:

1. Intent (not criminal intent to cause injury, necessarily, but intent to commit the
act)
2. Contact (non-consensual contact with the individual or his/her effects, such as
clothing)
 3. Harm (the battery caused actual harm meaning physical, mental, or emotional,
not limited to just physical harm)

Judgement/Decision-

The Trial Court, the Pierce County Superior Court held that the plaintiff failed
to establish proof of intent in the act committed by the defendant. The Court did
not accept the testimony of the Plaintiff’s sister and instead accepted the
testimony of Dailey. The trial court thus concluded that Dailey did not possess
any “any wilful [sic] or unlawful purpose” or intent to harm Garratt when he
moved the chair. The Judge dismissed the action against Dailey.