Ruth Garratt v. Brian Dailey, a Minor, by George S. Dailey, his Guardian
Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two
February 14, 1955
Hill, J Brian Dailey, a five year old, was visiting the home of Ruth Garratt alongside his apparent supervisor at the time, Naomi Garratt, Ruth’s sister. Ruth Garratt claimed that during the visit, Dailey intentionally pulled out a chair from below her as she was about to sit down, causing her to fall to the ground and withstand a fractured hip and other injuries. Disagreement lied between the two parties as Dailey claimed that once he realized Garratt was about to sit, he attempted to move the chair back under her. Garratt wanted the court to address Dailey’s intent of battery as she was certain that Dailey moved the chair knowing what would happen next. Garratt believed that Dailey intended to inflict harm towards her and demanded relief in damages. This case was previously heard by a trial court which determined that the plaintiff had not established her theory of battery. Instead, the trial court accepted Dailey’s version of the story and did not award Garratt damages. The trial court came to this conclusion as it was unwilling to accept Garratt’s testimony finding it lacking strong evidence to show Dailey’s intent of battery. The case was then appealed and taken to a superior court. The superior court aimed to resolve the following issues, respectively: Is the element of intent met if the defendant knows with substantial certainty that his actions will lead to harmful contact? Can a five year old be held legally responsible for an intentional tort? The court needed to explore the law of liability for battery by applying Dailey’s actions to what constitutes as intended battery. The Supreme Court of Washington remanded the case for further clarification with regards to whether the defendant knew “with substantial