--- title: "Garratt v. Dailey" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/garratt-v-dailey --- # Garratt v. Dailey Garratt v. Dailey is the leading case on the meaning of intent in battery, establishing that intent includes not only the desire to bring about a harmful or offensive contact but also the substantial certainty that such contact will result. This expanded definition of intent is foundational to modern intentional tort doctrine. ## Citation 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955) ## Year 1955 ## Court Supreme Court of Washington ## Facts Brian Dailey, a five-year-old boy, pulled a lawn chair out from under Ruth Garratt, an elderly woman, just as she was sitting down. Garratt fell to the ground and suffered a fractured hip. The trial court found that Dailey did not have the subjective purpose of causing Garratt to fall but may have known with substantial certainty that she would attempt to sit where the chair had been. ## Procedural History The trial court initially found for the defendant. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the boy knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been. On remand, the trial court found for the plaintiff. ## Issue Whether a defendant can be found to have the requisite intent for battery when the defendant did not desire to cause harmful contact but knew with substantial certainty that such contact would occur. ## Holding The court held that intent for battery is established if the defendant either desired to cause a harmful or offensive contact or knew with substantial certainty that such contact would result from his actions. The case was remanded to determine whether the five-year-old had such knowledge. ## Reasoning The court adopted the Restatement of Torts definition of intent, which encompasses both purpose and knowledge. It reasoned that a person who acts knowing with substantial certainty that harmful contact will occur is just as culpable as one who acts with the purpose of causing that contact. The court rejected the idea that only subjective desire to harm satisfies the intent element. Even a young child can possess the cognitive capacity to understand that certain actions will produce certain results, and if that understanding amounts to substantial certainty, intent is established. ## Impact Garratt v. Dailey became the standard formulation for intent in intentional torts, adopted by the Restatement (Second) and Restatement (Third) of Torts. The dual definition of intent — purpose or substantial certainty — is now virtually universal in American tort law. The case is also significant for establishing that even young children can have the capacity to form the requisite intent for intentional torts. ## Key Quotes - A battery would be established if, in addition to plaintiff's fall, it was proved that, when Brian moved the chair, he knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been. - The mere absence of any intent to injure the plaintiff or to play a prick upon her or to embarrass her, or to commit an assault and battery on her would not absolve him from liability if in fact he had such knowledge. ## Related Cases - vosburg-v-putney - brown-v-kendall - katko-v-briney - hammontree-v-jenner ## Exam Relevance This case is a staple on exams testing the definition of intent. Professors commonly present scenarios where the defendant did not desire to cause harm but arguably knew with substantial certainty that harm would result, requiring students to apply the Garratt framework to determine whether intent is satisfied. ## Study Tips - Memorize the dual definition of intent: purpose to cause contact OR knowledge with substantial certainty that contact will result. - Distinguish substantial certainty from mere recklessness or negligence — substantial certainty is a higher bar than knowledge of a risk. - Consider the capacity question: even a child can form intent if cognitively capable of understanding consequences. - Connect this case to Vosburg v. Putney, which deals with the related question of whether intent to harm is necessary for battery. ## Doctrine Established Substantial Certainty Test for Intent --- Source: [Garratt v. Dailey — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/garratt-v-dailey)