Connection lost
Server error
GARRATT v. DAILEY Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A five-year-old boy moved a chair as the plaintiff was about to sit, causing her to fall. The court remanded to determine if the boy knew with substantial certainty his action would cause contact, establishing intent for battery.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that intent for battery requires either a purpose to cause contact or knowledge with substantial certainty that contact will result, regardless of the actor’s age or motive.
GARRATT v. DAILEY Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Brian Dailey, five years and nine months old, was visiting the plaintiff, Ruth Garratt. As Garratt began to sit in a lawn chair, Brian moved it. Garratt fell, sustaining a fractured hip and other injuries. The trial court found Brian did not intend to injure Garratt, play a prank, or commit an assault and battery. Instead, it found Brian picked up the chair, seated himself, then saw Garratt about to sit where the chair had been. He hurriedly attempted to move the chair back for her but, due to his size and lack of dexterity, was unable to do so in time. The trial court initially dismissed the action, finding no unlawful purpose or intent to injure. Garratt appealed, arguing Brian’s actions constituted battery.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can the intent element for the tort of battery be satisfied if the actor, though not acting with a purpose to cause harmful or offensive contact, knew with substantial certainty that such contact would result from their actions?
Yes, the case was remanded for clarification. Intent for battery is established Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can the intent element for the tort of battery be satisfied if the actor, though not acting with a purpose to cause harmful or offensive contact, knew with substantial certainty that such contact would result from their actions?
Conclusion
Garratt v. Dailey is a seminal case establishing that for intentional torts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderi
Legal Rule
A battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
Legal Analysis
The court adopted the Restatement's definition of intent for battery, which includes Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Intent for battery can be established by showing the defendant acted