Garratt v. Dailey
46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)
Author: Jim

Facts: The defendant in this case is a 5 years old kid! The plaintiff claims that the defendant and his mother were in her backyard and when the plaintiff went to the backyard and proceeded to sit on a chair, the defendant pulled away the chair and the plaintiff fell and fractured her hip. 

Procedure:- The trial court did not accept plaintiff’s view of the facts and went with the defendant’s story.  According to the trial court, the defendant had moved the chair well before plaintiff had proceeded to sit and when the defendant saw that the plaintiff was trying to sit at the spot where the chair was, he tried to put the chair under the plaintiff but failed. The trial court ruled that when the defendant moved the chair, “he did not have any willful or unlawful purpose in doing so; that he did not have any intent to injure the plaintiff, or any intent to bring about any unauthorized or offensive contact with her person or any objects appurtenant thereto.”

Issue:  Did the actions of the defendant constitute “Battery"?

Holding: Answer depends-  Look at reasoning

Reasoning:  The court reasoned that the defendant made the volitional act of moving the chair.  Now the trial court has already determined that the defendant did not have any willful or unlawful purpose when he moved the chair.  But the court went a step further.  The court stated that when Brian moved the chair, if he knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the hair had been, then the battery can also be established.  The court ruled that the trial overlooked this rule and remanded the case for retrial.