Does a person commit a battery when he moves a chair and another person falls while attempting to sit, if the actor knew with substantial certainty that the person would attempt to sit where the chair had been, regardless of any purpose to injure or embarrass?

Brian Dailey, a five-year-old boy, was visiting Naomi Garratt in the backyard of the home of Ruth Garratt, the plaintiff and Naomi's sister, on July 16, 1951. Ruth came out into the yard and attempted to sit in a wood and canvas lawn chair. Naomi, the only witness to testify about the fall, stated that Brian deliberately pulled the chair out from under Ruth as she sat down. Ruth did not testify about how or why she fell.

The trial court rejected Naomi's testimony and accepted Brian's version. It found that Brian moved the chair a few feet and sat in it, then discovered Ruth about to sit where the chair had been. He hurriedly got up and tried to move the chair toward her to help her sit, but due to his small size and lack of dexterity he could not get it under her in time. Ruth fell and fractured her hip and sustained other injuries. The trial court found that Brian had no willful or unlawful purpose, no intent to injure her, and no intent to bring about an offensive contact or to play a prank. Her damages were set at $11,000.

Ruth Garratt sued Brian Dailey, through his guardian ad litem, for battery. The case was tried to the superior court without a jury. The trial court adopted Brian's version of events, made findings of fact that he lacked any intent to injure or to cause an unauthorized or offensive contact, and dismissed the action. The trial court also fixed damages at $11,000 in case a judgment for the plaintiff were later found warranted. Garratt appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington, seeking entry of judgment for $11,000 or a new trial. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for clarification of its findings. A petition for rehearing was denied on May 3, 1955.

(Hill, J.)

Yes. A battery is established where the actor knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit where the chair had been, even without any purpose to injure or embarrass her. The case is remanded because the trial court never made a finding on that question of knowledge.

A battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another. Under Restatement of Torts \u00a7 13, an actor is liable for a harmful contact if the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact, without consent or privilege. Intent does not require a hostile motive. It exists where the act is done for the purpose of causing the contact or with knowledge that the contact is substantially certain to result. A mere realization of a grave risk makes conduct negligent or reckless but does not supply the intent required for battery.

Brian's moving of the chair was a volitional act. If he moved the chair while Ruth was sitting down, the intent to cause contact with the ground is patent. See Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891). The trial court rejected that version of the facts. But even on the facts as found, liability follows if Brian knew with substantial certainty that Ruth would try to sit where the chair had been. The absence of intent to injure, play a prank, or embarrass does not excuse him if he had that knowledge. Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. 450, 20 N.E. 132 (1889). Without such knowledge, there is no wrongful act and no liability.

The findings support an inference that Brian lacked such knowledge, but because intent can be inferred from knowledge, the trial court must expressly decide that issue before the action is dismissed.

The rule is the same for adults and children. Brian's age matters only in determining what he knew, where his experience, capacity, and understanding are material. The remaining claims of error, including limits on cross-examination, exclusion of the liability insurance policy, newly discovered evidence, and denial of a pretrial deposition, lack merit or show no prejudice.