Case
Garratt v. Dailey
Garratt v. Dailey (Wash. 1955) held that a five‑year‑old who moved a chair moments before a woman attempted to sit could commit battery if he knew with substantial certainty that contact would result; intent is satisfied by purpose or such knowledge. Many states adopt this Restatement‑style standard, though wording and jury‑instruction formulations vary.
Rule to remember
Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197 (1955) (Washington Supreme Court), establishes that for civil battery, intent is met by purpose to cause contact or knowledge that contact is substantially certain—even without a purpose to injure.
Key elements and checks
- Battery requires harmful or offensive contact without consent.
- Intent is satisfied by purpose to cause contact or knowledge that contact is substantially certain.
- The rule applies even to very young actors; the focus is their knowledge.
- The standard is distinct from negligence and mere foreseeability.
- Many jurisdictions follow this Restatement‑style approach, though wording and applications vary.
In the source’s words
“if the defendant acted with the purpose of causing contact or knew with substantial certainty that contact would result.”
Battery | Wex | LII
“intentionally pulled a chair out from under an elderly woman, causing her to fall and sustain injuries, was liable for the intentional tort of battery”
Intentional tort | Wex | LII
State variations exist: jurisdictions generally accept the “purpose or substantial certainty” understanding of intent for battery, but specific formulations and jury instructions differ. Always check your state’s authority.