Case Brief Garratt V Dailey

Powered by

Law Students: Don't know your Bloomberg Police force login? Annals here

Brief Fact Summary. Five year-erstwhile Brian Dailey (Defendant) visited Naomi Garrett Plaintiff at her sister Ruth's dwelling. The later contends that every bit she was nigh to sit on a backyard chair, Dailey pulled it out from under her causing her injury. The Superior Court for Pierce County (Washington) found in favor of defendant in an action for set on and battery and Plaintiff appealed.

Synopsis of Rule of Constabulary. Intentionality is central to the tort of battery, and while a small-scale who has committed a tort with forcefulness is liable as whatsoever other would be, a plaintiff must plant that the defendant committed his or her human activity for the purpose of causing the harmful contact or with substantial certainty that such contact will result.

Points of Police - Legal Principles in this Case for Constabulary Students.

Merely our present inquiry must besides go along in the low-cal of the as well-recognized dominion that, after the rendering of final judgment in a case, in the absence of any attack upon the complaint for want of sufficient statement of facts constituting a cause of action, which situation is, of course, presented upon default, the complaint volition be near liberally construed equally stating a crusade of action warranting the granting of the relief prayed for.

View Full Point of Law

Facts. Plaintiff alleged that she came out into the lawn to talk with her sister and that, when she was about to sit down down in a forest and canvas lawn chair, five year-old Dailey (Accused) deliberately pulled the chair out from under her. The trial courtroom accepted found Defendant's version of the events that he was attempting to move the chair toward Plaintiff to help her in sitting downwards in the chair. He maintained that, due to his small size and lack of dexterity, he could non get the chair under Plaintiff in time to keep her from falling. Plaintiff was injured in the autumn. The trial court ruled for the Defendant. On entreatment, the Supreme Court of Washington remanded for a factual determination of Defendant's intention.

Issue. In an action for bombardment, what constitutes willful and unlawful intent?

Held. The Supreme Court for Washington remanded for clarification, with instructions to make definite findings on the outcome of whether Defendant knew with substantial certainty that Plaintiff would try to sit down down where the chair had been. If then, the court was to alter the judgment.

Give-and-take. The concept of "intent" denotes a defendant's desires to crusade the consequences of his actions, or his belief (with substantial certainty) that the results will follow. The distinction to be drawn is not merely whether the defendant intends to commit the act in question, but whether he intends to cause the consequences of his human activity.

Case Brief Garratt V Dailey,

Source: https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/establishing-a-claim-for-intentional-tort-to-person-or-property/garratt-v-dailey/

Posted by: carrolloakedy.blogspot.com

Share this post