Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Henderson
Garratt v. Dailey
Citation:46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In July, 1951, Naomi Garrett, visited her sister, Ruth Garrett, the plaintiff. Also visiting the home at the time was five year old Brian Dailey, the defendant.
The plaintiff alleged that she came out into the backyard to talk with her sister, and that when she was about to sit down in a lawn chair, the defendant deliberately moved the chair away from her. The plaintiff fell to the ground and received a fracture of her hip and other serious injuries.
The defendant alleged that he moved the chair when he discovered the plaintiff about to sit down at the place where the lawn chair had formerly been, at which time he nearly got up from the chair and attempted to move it toward the plaintiffs to aid her in sitting down in the chair, but due to defendant’s small size and lack of dexterity, he was unable to get the lawn chair under plaintiff in time.
The trial court accepted the defendant’s version of the events and entered a judgment in favor of the defendant. The trial court found that the defendant “did not have any wilful or unlawful purpose in doing so; that he did not have any intent to injure the plaintiff, or any intent to bring about any unauthorized or offensive contact with her person or any objects appurtenant thereto; that the circumstances which immediately preceded the fall of the plaintiff established that the defendant, Brian Dailey, did not have purpose, intent or design to perform a prank or to effect an assault and battery upon the person of the plaintiff.” County in Washington State found in favor of the defendant in an action for assault and battery.
Plaintiff now appeals.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.