## Facts

- Ruth Garratt visited a backyard where five-year-old Brian Dailey was present with Garratt’s sister, Naomi.
- As Garratt began to sit in a wood-and-canvas lawn chair, the chair was moved, and she fell to the ground.
- Garratt suffered serious injuries, including a fractured hip.
- Garratt alleged Brian deliberately pulled the chair out from under her; Naomi was the only witness supporting that account.
- The trial court credited Brian’s version: he moved the chair a few feet, sat down, then noticed Garratt about to sit where it had been and attempted (unsuccessfully) to move it back under her in time.
- The trial court found Brian had no wilful or unlawful purpose, no intent to injure, and no intent to cause unauthorized or offensive contact.
- The trial court entered judgment for Brian but set damages at $11,000 in the event of reversal.

## Issues

1. Whether “intent” for battery is satisfied when a defendant, even without a purpose to injure or offend, knows with substantial certainty that harmful or offensive contact will result from the act.
2. Whether a minor may be liable for battery to the same extent as an adult if the requisite intent (including substantial-certainty knowledge) is proven.
3. Whether the trial court’s findings were legally sufficient where they addressed lack of purpose to harm but did not resolve substantial-certainty knowledge.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held that battery intent is not limited to a purpose to cause harm or offense; it also includes acting with knowledge that harmful or offensive contact is substantially certain to result.
- The court concluded the trial court applied an incomplete intent standard by focusing on the absence of an intent to injure or cause offensive contact without addressing substantial-certainty knowledge.
- The court remanded for additional, definite findings on whether Brian knew with substantial certainty that Garratt would attempt to sit where the chair had been moved from.
- The court directed the trial court to modify the judgment if the supplemental findings warranted liability under the correct intent standard.

## Legal Principles

- Battery may be established by an act intended to cause harmful or offensive contact, or by an act done with knowledge that such contact is substantially certain to result.
- The relevant inquiry concerns intent as to the consequence (the contact), not merely intent to perform the physical act.
- A minor can be liable for an intentional tort on the same terms as an adult if the required intent is proven as a matter of fact.
- When the governing standard includes substantial-certainty knowledge, findings limited to lack of purpose to harm or offend may be inadequate and require remand for clarification.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that battery intent includes knowledge with substantial certainty that harmful or offensive contact will result, and it remanded for findings on whether the child had that knowledge when moving the chair.


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