RUTH GARRATT V. BRIAN DAILEY, a minor, by George S. Dailey, his guardian ad litem.

CITATION: 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)

COURT: The Supreme Court of Washington, Department Two

YEAR: 1955

NAMES OF JUDGES:

• Justice Hill (authoring the opinion)
• Justices Schwellenbach, Donworth, and Weaver (concurring)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 14, 1955.

PARTIES INVOLVED

Petitioner/Appellant: Ruth Garratt, an adult woman.

Respondent/Defendant: Brian Dailey, a minor (age five years, nine months) by George S. Dailey, his Guardian ad Litem

FACTS OF THE CASE

On July 16, 1951, Brian Dailey, a five-year-old boy, was visiting the backyard of Ruth Garratt’s home with Naomi Garratt (Ruth’s sister). According to the trial court’s findings, Brian picked up a lightly built wood and canvas lawn chair, moved it sideways a few feet, and seated himself in it. When he discovered that Ruth Garratt was about to sit down where the chair had formerly been, he hurriedly got up and attempted to move the chair back toward her to aid her in sitting down. Due to his small size and lack of dexterity, he was unable to get the chair under Ruth in time to prevent her from falling to the ground. Ruth fell and sustained a fractured hip and other serious injuries. The damages were assessed at $11,000. However, Naomi Garratt testified that Brian deliberately pulled the chair out from under Ruth as she was sitting down. However, the trial court rejected this testimony and accepted Brian’s version of events.

ISSUES RAISED

Primary legal question was whether Brian Dailey had the requisite intent to commit the tort of battery when he moved the chair, specifically whether he knew with substantial certainty that Ruth Garratt would attempt to sit down where the chair had been.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner’s Arguments (Ruth Garratt):

• Brian’s action in moving the chair constituted a battery
• She was entitled to recover damages for her injuries resulting from the fall Respondent’s Arguments (Brian Dailey):
• The defendant had no intent to harm the plaintiff and therefore could not be held liable for battery
• The trial court correctly found that Brian did not have any willful or unlawful purpose, intent to injure, or intent to bring about unauthorized or offensive contact

JUDGMENT / FINAL DECISION

The Washington Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for clarification on the issue of Brian’s knowledge. The Court neither allowed nor dismissed the appeal but instructed the lower court to make definite findings on whether Brian knew with substantial certainty that Ruth would attempt to sit down where he had moved the chair. The Court indicated that if such knowledge was found, Ruth would be entitled to recover the $11,000 in damages. On remand, the trial court subsequently found that Brian did have knowledge with substantial certainty and entered judgment in favor of Ruth Garratt for $11,000, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

LEGAL REASONING / RATIO DECIDENDI

Definition of Battery and Intent Standard

The Court applied the Restatement of Torts § 13¹ definition of battery as “the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another”. The Court established that intent for battery can be satisfied in two ways:

1. Purpose intent: Acting for the purpose of causing harmful or offensive contact
2. Knowledge intent: Acting “with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced”

The “Substantial Certainty” Test

The Court emphasized that substantial certainty is the critical standard: “It is not enough that the act itself is intentionally done and this, even though the actor realizes or should realize that it contains a very grave risk of bringing about the contact or apprehension… unless he realizes that to a substantial certainty, the contact or apprehension will result, the actor has not that intention which is necessary”.

Application to Minors

The Court held that age is generally irrelevant for establishing intent in battery cases: “The law of battery as we have discussed it is the law applicable to adults, and no significance has been attached to the fact that Brian was a child less than six years of age”. However, the Court noted that “Brian’s age is of no consequence in determining what he knew, and there his experience, capacity, and understanding are of course material”.

Legal Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several key authorities:

• Restatement of Torts § 13 (primary authority for battery definition)²
• Vosburg v. Putney (1891)³
• Mercer v. Corbin (1889)⁴
• Prosser on Torts (textbook authority)⁵

CONCLUSION / OBSERVATIONS

Garratt v. Dailey established a landmark precedent in American tort law by clarifying that intent for battery includes both purpose and substantial certainty. The case demonstrates that even very young children can be held liable for intentional torts if they possess the requisite knowledge, regardless of any intent to harm.

This case is fundamental to understanding the “substantial certainty doctrine” in intentional torts, establishing that defendants can be liable for battery even without malicious intent if they knew with substantial certainty that their actions would result in harmful contact. The decision reinforced that motive is irrelevant in battery cases – the absence of intent to injure, embarrass, or play a prank does not absolve liability if substantial certainty exists.

The case also illustrates the importance of clear factual findings by trial courts, as the Supreme Court’s remand was necessary because the lower court had not specifically addressed the critical question of the defendant’s knowledge at the time of the incident.

Reference(s):
¹ Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (American Law Institute 1965).

²Ibid

³ 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403

⁴ 117 Ind. 450, 20 N.E. 132, 3 L.R.A. 221

⁵ W L Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts (West Publishing 1941).