Brian Dairiley Case Summary

The case of Brian Dailey and Ruth Garratt is a good example to demonstrate the concepts that we have learned in this week’s reading and assignments regarding torts. It involves the liability of a minor for an intentional tort. According to the article published by Lawnix, a five-year-old boy, Brian Dailey, was accused of a battery when he pulled a chair out from under Ruth Garratt just as she was going to sit down and caused her to fall and broke her hip. Ruth brought a tort claim against Dailey for an intentional tort of a battery. The trial court found in favor of the defendant asserting that there was no intent to injure the Garratt. The court, however, made a finding of $11,000 in damages in case the ruling was overturned on appeal. Dailey appealed (Lawnix, n.d., para. 1). The issue before the Court was whether a five-year-old minor could be liable for an intentional tort as any other would be, and if “the element of intent is satisfied if the Dailey knows with a “substantial certainty” that his action will result in a harmful or offensive contact.”
The Holding and Rule affirm that …show more content…
According to the textbook, “in tort law, intent means only that the actor intended the consequences of his act or knew with substantial certainty that certain consequences would result from the act” (Miller, 2014, p. 102). Garratt could not prove that the tortfeasor had sufficient knowledge to foresee the contact with "substantial certainty." In other words, the defendant must be substantially certain that his act would cause the offensive contact. The defendant has no knowledge of the normal consequences of his acts. Without knowledge, there would be nothing wrongful about the defendant’s action in pulling out the chair, and, when there is no wrongful act, there is no liability. I think that the doctrine of constructive intent does not apply to Bailey in this