Garrett v Dailey is a case that revolves around a 5-year old boy moving a chair, causing his aunt to fall and injure herself. The case revolves around the question: Did 5 year old Brian Dailey have the intent to harm and/or knowledge that his actions could result in a battery?

Battery can be defined as the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another. The court stated it’s interpretation of how battery should be viewed by saying: “it is not enough that the act itself is intentionally done and this, even though the actor realizes or should realize that it contains a very grave risk of bringing about the contact or apprehension. Such realization may make the actor’s conduct negligent or even reckless but unless he realizes that to a substantial certainty the contact or apprehension will result, the actor has not that intention which is necessary to make him liable under the rule stated in this section” …show more content…
The plaintiff failed to prove this, and instead the court adopted Brian’s version of the events. His version of events was that he moved the chair a few feet sideways to sit in. Upon realizing that Ms. Garrett was going to sit down, he attempted to move the chair back under her but was unable to. The plaintiff further attempted to argue that if Brian knew Ms. Garret would try to sit there with substantial certainty, his actions would be have constituted a battery. The absence of intent to purposefully injure was not enough to absolve him from liability for Ms. Garratt’s injuries. The court focused on a number of different issues, in order to come to a