1. Garratt (a women with arthrophlogosis) v. Dailey(an infant)

2. M A P Fact Procedure Issue Holding Dissent Q&A

3. 1 FACT Plaintiff contends that Defendant moved a lawn chair that Defendant believed Plaintiff would sit upon. And Defendant expecting that chair to sit upon, Plaintiff fell in the ground and sustained injury..

4. Defendant contends that he moved a lawn chair sideways a few feet upon which to sit. At which time, he discovered Plaintiff about to sit where the chair formerly was located. At which time, he hurried to move the chair back to aid Plaintiff in sitting down but was unable to do so. Plaintiff fell, contacted the ground, and sustained a hip fracture.

5. 2 Procedure 1 The Superior Court, Pierce County rejects Plaintiff testimony; dismisses case. 2 Justice Hill for the Supreme Court of Washington remands for clarification. 3 The Superior Court, Pierce County finds knowledge with substantial certainty in Defendant; enters judgment for Plaintiff. 4 Supreme Court of Washington affirms on second appeal.

6. 3 ISSUE 1What is a child's liability for an alleged battery? 2What constitutes a determination of intent?

7. 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 Defendant was a child less than six years of age when the alleged battery occurred. Holding in issue1

8. a battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another; and in order that any act may be done with the intention of bringing about a harmful contact or an apprehension there of to a particular person, the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that it is substantially certain to be produced. BATTERY – DEFINITION.

9. BATTER Y SO Volitional act intent causation Harmful or offensivecontact No necessary contact plaintiff but anything in relation with plaintiff

10. In an action against a five-year-old boy for personal injuries sustained when the plaintiff attempted to sit down in a chair which the boy had moved, the law of battery applicable to adults applies; and the circumstance where the boy's age is of the consequence is in determining what he knew, and there his experience, capacity, and understanding are material. Holding in issue1 Another view

11. 4 My opinion in issue1 when a minor has committed a tort with force, he is liable to be proceeded against as any other person would be(may be just like an naughty boy breaks the neighbors’ window when he plays football).

12. Intent ? Holding in issue2 Purpose? Desire? Negligence? Knowledge?

13. A. knowledge -----the person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result Holding in issue2 B. purpose----- the person acts is producing that consequence Intent covers both knowledge and purpose

14. that the evidence sustains the finding of the trial court that, when the boy removed the chair, he knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit in the place where the chair had been; and such knowledge is sufficient to charge the boy with intent to commit a battery. Holding in issue2 Negligence?

15. the liability of an infant for his tort does not depend upon the size of his estate or even upon the existence of one, his guardian in law will respond the joint liability. Holding in issue2 How defendant respond $11,000 plaintiff asked?

16. the absence of any intent to injure the plaintiff or to play a joke on her or to embarrass her, would not absolve him from liability,when in fact the boy, when he moved the chair, knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been. My opinion in issue2