Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - emeisenheimer

Pages: [1]
1
Current Law Students / Case Briefings
« on: August 14, 2015, 02:02:45 PM »
Hello everyone! I am new to the law school game and I need a little bit of help/advice. I have to do some case briefings before my first day of law school. I am not 100% sure I am doing them correctly. I was wondering if anyone could take a look and let me know if I am doing them correctly. if I could improve, etc. Thanks so much!



Case Name: Garratt vs Dailey, Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2
Facts: Brian Dailey pulled a chair out from under Naomi Garratt. The direct effects from the fall included a fractured hip as well as other injuries and damages.
Issue: Did Brian Dailey pull the chair out from under Naomi Garratt with the intention of causing bodily harm?
Holding (and Judgement): The court ruled a remand for clarification on whether or not Brian Dailey had knowledge of certainty that Naomi Garratt would attempt to sit down where the chair had been moved from.
Pre-existing Rules: The rule that determines liability for battery is given as:
‘An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another's person makes the actor liable to the other, if ‘(a) the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or a third person, and ‘(b) the contact is not consented to by the other or the other's consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress, and ‘(c) the contact is not otherwise privileged.’
Reasoning: After looking at the rule that determines liability the court looked at whether or not the plaintiff could prove that Brian moved the chair while she was in the act of sitting down. The plaintiff based her case on that theory and failed to provide proof. Battery could only be established if it could be proven that Brian had knowledge that the defendant would indeed sit down where the chair he had moved been located.
Dissent/Concurrences: None

Pages: [1]