SPEAKER_00 0:00

If you're a first-year law student taking torts, you are probably going to have to read the case of Garrett V Daley. Let's talk about what that case is all about and how you might use it for your exam.

SPEAKER_01 0:13

Welcome to Law School Decoded, the podcast that pulls back the curtain on what it's really like to succeed in law school. Let's get started.

SPEAKER_00 1:02

How you might write some issue statements based on this case. So that's what we're going to talk about today. As you pop open your torts textbook and you start to read Garrett v. Daily, the first thing you're going to notice and identify whenever you read a new case is what court is it in and when? And what you learn is that Garrett v. Daly, the opinion that you're reading, is a Washington Supreme Court case from 1955. It's a Washington Supreme Court case. What does that tell you? Okay, the Washington Supreme Court, that's an appellate court. So this is going to be a case that is on appeal. So a civil case, torts case, was filed in a trial court. And in this particular case, the procedural posture is that in the trial court, there was a trial. The case went all the way to trial. People testified. Evidence was presented. The parties had exchanged information and potentially some depositions in discovery. They got to trial, people testified, and the court had to decide whether a battery occurred. This case is all about the element of intent. That is one of the elements that is needed to prove a battery and other intentional torts. So you're not just learning about battery in this case and the elements of battery. Rather, you're learning about what it means for someone to commit any intentional tort, which could include torts like battery in this case, torts like assault that you'll learn about, torts like false imprisonment. It is distinct from non-intentional torts like negligence. So there are intentional torts and there are unintentional torts like negligence. Some people in their civil cases may want to try to prove intentional torts that might get them greater damages because obviously if someone was intentionally doing something, that's more egregious, right? So in the case of intentional torts, any intentional tort, the plaintiff, the person bringing the case, is going to have to prove that the defendant had some type of intent to cause the harm to them. This section of your textbook that you're reading is about what it means for someone to have that intent and the circumstances when a court should find that they have that intent. So what is going on in this case? Let's try to untangle what happened in Garrett v. Daily, because it can be a bit confusing because things are presented a bit out of order, and they're presented as the appellate court is reviewing what happened in this trial court and what the trial court decided. So the appellate court is telling you, the reader, what people testified about, but also what the trial court found and what the trial court believed. And that makes this case a little bit tricky to read. You may need to read it a couple times and listen to this podcast to understand it. But the case was all about Ruth Garrett. Ruth is the plaintiff who brought the case, and Ruth owns a home. Ruth fractured her hip in her backyard back in 1951 when she was trying to sit down in a chair. That's what this case is all about is Ruth fracturing her hip and whether she is entitled to damages from the defendant that she is suing. So how did this injury come about? Well, Ruth owned this home, and one day she had over as guests to her home her sister, Naomi Garrett. Naomi had a young son, Brian Daly. Brian was five years and nine months old. So if you're a parent, you know at that point they're mobile, they can move things around, they can get into trouble, and Brian got into trouble in this case. Brian is the defendant in this case. Ruth is suing her nephew, Brian, who again is about five years, nine months old. So all three of them, maybe others, are hanging out in the backyard. The backyard, like many do, have lawn chairs. Imagine it's 1950. The suburbs are being built. Maybe Ruth lived in one. I don't know. But in any event, she's got a backyard, and this backyard has lawn chairs. According to Ruth, what she testified at trial when she got up on the stand is she said, Hey, I started to sit down in a wood canvas lawn chair. And then as I was sitting down, I fell and I fractured my hip. And that fracture cost me $11,000 in damages, a lot of money way back in 1951 and 1955. So there was a trial about how she fell because Ruth sued her nephew, Brian Daly, Naomi's son. And Ruth said, Brian intentionally caused this injury, I allege, and I believe I should recover against him for battery because I fell. So there was a trial about that. Now, at the trial, interestingly, Ruth did not testify as to how or why she fell. That makes sense, maybe if she's testifying honestly, because when you're sitting down, you can't see what's going on behind you. Usually you're not always looking behind you. And so she said, look, I just sat down and I fell. I don't know exactly how it happened. Naomi Garrett, though, Brian's mom, threw Brian under the bus. Naomi Garrett testified that her son Brian, as Ruth was sitting down, Brian pulled that chair deliberately away from Ruth. He pulled it out from under her, maybe as a little kid prank, and caused Ruth to sit down. Now, Brian Daly also testified at this trial. Young Brian took the stand. At this point, it's it's four years later. So he's probably about nine years old. And Brian says, Hey, I that's not what happened. What my mom said is not what happened. I said that I saw that chair in her backyard. And when I saw that chair, I moved it a few feet and then I sat down in it. And then some amount of time passed. They don't say how much. But then Ruth went to try to sit down where the chair was. And I, little Brian, tried to move it back to under her to catch her with the chair so she'd sit down in it. But he says I was too small to move it fast enough. And my Aunt Ruth fell to the ground and got badly hurt. She fractured her hip. So the court heard conflicting testimony from Brian and from Naomi. Naomi said Brian clearly intentionally caused this injury. He pulled the chair out from under her. And Brian, in contrast, said, no, no, no. I was maybe my mom saw me moving the chair, but I was trying to move it back under her. So who did the court believe? We don't know why, but the court believed Brian's version of events. The court said, look, I don't think at this after hearing the evidence at this trial that Brian had any willful or unlawful purpose when he was moving that chair back under his aunt Ruth. I don't think he had any intent to injure her. That's what I think he was doing. Therefore, he did not intend to bring about any harmful or offensive contact with her. Harmful, that that intent to cause harmful or offensive conduct contact is the element of battery that Ruth needs to prove. The trial court knew that. And the trial court said, look, when he was moving the chair back, which is what I believe was happening, he didn't have that intent. Therefore, Ruth loses this case. Brian wins this case. So the court entered a judgment. That's what courts do after hearing evidence and deciding cases on their merits, on the facts and law. And that judgment dismissed the battery case against Brian Daly based on the court's findings. Now, note, when the court was deciding intent, it focused on the moment that Brian was moving the chair back under Ruth. The court did not make any findings about Brian's intent when he originally moved the chair a few feet and sat down in it. The court just didn't make any findings about that. That's gonna be important. It's a really important distinction that's hard to get when you read this case the first time, so keep that in mind. Now, Ruth is unhappy with this result at trial. So what does she do? When people don't like how things turned out in the trial court, what do they do? They can appeal. Ruth Garrett appealed. She went to all the way up to the Washington Supreme Court in 1955. And she when she goes to that appellate court, she asks the court to do two things. One, she says, appellate court, enter a judgment in my favor, look at this evidence, and just say, I win the case. He committed a battery. He had the requisite intent. But she said, second, court, appellate court, if you're not willing to just say that I win the case, I want you to order a new trial so that I have a chance to prove my case again. Now, those are the two common forms of relief that still even today parties ask for when they appeal a trial court verdict. There are others, right? People can say, hey, the damages were too high and other things like that. But usually those are the two things that people will ask for. And Ruth asked the Washington Supreme Court to do one of those two things. Okay, so the appellate court looks at this case, it looks at the facts, and the appellate court starts laying out some rules. These are rules that you can put into your outline for your exam that we've been talking about. The rule is that a battery is the intentional infliction of harmful bodily contact upon another. The elements of battery are an act done with intent to bring about harmful or offensive contact to another person. The contact is not consented to by the other person, or the other person's consent was obtained by fraud or duress, and the contact is not otherwise privileged. So you're going to learn more about those second and third elements potentially if your professor covers them in other case, consent, and whether the conduct was privileged by privileged, like was the conduct in self-defense, because then maybe you can engage in a battery and harmful or offensive contact. This case is about that first element. Was the act done with intent to bring about a harmful or offensive contact to another person? The court said it is not enough that the act itself was done intentionally, even though the actor realized or should realize that the action brings about a grave risk of contact. That's a negligence claim that you'll learn about later. That's an unintentional tort. Rather, to prove battery, Ruth needed to show that Brian Daly realized to a substantial certainty that the contact would result. That's the intent needed. And that is the key rule that you get from this particular case. The elements of battery you'll probably get in other cases. You'll learn more about defenses in other cases. But the key rule from this case that's really unique to this case is that to prove an intentional battery or an intentional tort, a plaintiff must show that the defendant realized to a substantial certainty that offensive or harmful contact would result from their actions. The absence of an intent to injure someone doesn't absolve them from battery. The question isn't whether, hey, Brian intended to injure her. The question is whether he realized to a substantial certainty that harmful or offensive contact would result. If a party has no realization of a substantial certainty that their actions would cause injurus or offensive contact, then there is no wrongful intent and no intentional tort, no battery. So that was the question in Garrett v. Daly intent. Did Brian know with substantial certainty when he moved the chair that it would cause harm to her? That it would cause offensive contact. Now, if the court on appeal recognizes if Ruth had proved that Brian moved the chair while she was sitting down to hurt her, if the trial court had believed Naomi, then of course Ruth would have proved her case. She would have proved intent. Brian did it on purpose, the little miscreant, and Ruth would have been titled to a judgment against him in her favor. Now that was Ruth's Siri, and that's what Naomi said. But the trial court disagreed. It rejected Naomi's version of events. It found that Brian was trying to move the chair back to help her. On appeal, the appellate court, the Washington Supreme Court, did not disturb that factual finding. And that's generally how appellate courts operate, by the way. When you're reading cases at this procedural posture, appellate judges know they weren't in the courtroom when these people testified. Maybe it was super clear to the trial judge that Naomi was lying. So the appellate court is going to go with the facts as the trial court found them to be. It's not going to disturb that in this instance, and that's usually the case. But here's what the appellate court said. Hey, trial court, when you were analyzing intent, you analyzed whether Brian had adequate intent for a battery when he was moving the chair back. And we agree with you, trial court. But of course, when Brian was moving the chair back, he did not intend to cause injurious or offensive contact with her. He did not intend by moving the chair back, or know with substantial certainty, that that act would cause that harmful or offensive contact. It wouldn't cause her to fall by moving the chair back. So we we don't quibble with that finding. But trial court, what about when Brian moved the chair initially to sit down on it? The appellate court said, hey, trial court, we're reading your opinion, and we don't think you made any findings about Brian's intent at that point in time when he initially moved the chair. I mean, appellate court said, Hey, maybe you maybe you meant to say that Brian didn't have intent at that point when he initially moved the chair, that he didn't know with substantial certainty that he would cause harmful or offensive contact to Ruth, but it's not explicit in your opinion. And we are not going to infer that you made that finding. The appellate court can't do that. Why? Because the trial court needs to make a finding as to each element of the claim based on the facts presented. The trial court needs to do that. So go back to the rules we talked about earlier. If Brian did not know with substantial certainty that moving the chair in the first place would cause injury because Ruth would be injured, then he is not liable for battery because Ruth cannot prove intent. In contrast, if he did know with substantial certainty when he initially moved the chair that he was going to cause injury to Ruth, and he knew that with substantial certainty, then he is liable for battery. Ruth would have proven facts that prove the element of intent and prove a battery. So the appellate court said based on the record, all that testimony evidence, look, trial court, we think you probably found that Brian didn't believe with substantial certainty that he was going to harm Ruth when he moved the chair initially. We could infer that from the trial court's finding for Ruth against Ruth and for Brian, but you weren't clear enough about it. Your decision didn't explicitly make that finding about what Brian's intent was when he initially moved the chair. The written decision doesn't say you only addressed the part when Brian moved the chair back underneath Ruth. So we need to send this case back down to you. And trial court, you need to make a finding about what Brian's intent was when he initially moved the chair a few feet and sat down on it. When he did that, did he know with substantial certainty that Ruth would try to sit there? And the appellate court said, look, we're not going to make that finding here. Remember, Ruth wanted us to. Ruth was saying, appellate court, please just enter a judgment for me. But the appellate court rightfully says, we don't know what these parties' intent were. We weren't there in trial. Trial court judge, you were there. You need to make the finding. The court also emphasizes that Brian's age doesn't change the legal standard. It doesn't change what the elements are. It doesn't change the how you phrase the rule for intent. You know, he's young. But if he had that intent, if he knew with substantial certainty, then Ruth proves her case. But Brian's age might be relevant to the finding that the trial court would make. It might be relevant to whether Brian knew with substantial certainty that moving the chair would cause injury such that he held the requisite intent. So Brian might say, I was so young, I I didn't know really that moving the chair would cause that. If I'd been older and wiser, I might have known. And that might be testimony that the court needs to take in mind. So what was the holding of this case? Well, the appellate court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court to make that finding as to whether Brian knew with substantial certainty that his actions in moving the chair would cause that harmful or offensive contact. Now, remember what Ruth asked for on appeal? The trial court did not do those things. The trial court refused to enter a judgment for Ruth in her favor. The trial court also refused to order a new trial. The appellate court just said, hey, this case is just remanded for clarification, not a whole new trial. The appellate court said, trial court, you've already heard the evidence. We don't think you need to do that again. So we're just telling you, trial court, answer the question about Brian's intent without a new trial. Now, on remand, which is when the case goes back down to the trial court, that's what remand means. The case is going back down to lower courts. Ruth could win if the trial court found that Brian knew with substantial certainty that his actions of moving the chair to sit down in it caused Ruth's injuries, and that Brian had the requisite intent, that he knew with substantial certainty that he was going to cause that harmful or offensive contact. And so the case was remanded for the trial court to make more definite findings on what Brian's intent was when he initially moved the chair. Now note procedurally a few things about this case. The appellate court required the trial court to make explicit findings about whether the required elements were met or not. That's important. When a trial court is deciding whether a plaintiff wins the case, they have to find that the facts support the plaintiff on each element of the case. Here, the trial court just didn't make any findings about whether that particular movement of the chair had the requisite intent or not. Second, note that the appellate court didn't question, overturn, or reverse the trial court's observations about Brian's versions of events being true. And again, appellate courts will defer to trial courts on their findings of fact in almost every instance, because again, the appellate judges are not in the room for trial. So the trial court was in a much better position to determine whether Naomi was telling the truth or whether Brian was telling the truth. The appellate court isn't going to be able to do that. What makes this case hard to read as a law student? Like you may be reading it and you're like, this is super confusing. Well, it's an older case. It's very succinct. It doesn't flesh out the facts as patiently as I have in this podcast episode. And it also has some procedural steps involved that you're not used to yet. You're early in your law school career when you're reading it. This one had a trial, it had conflicting testimony at trial between two different related parties. There's a family tree you have to sketch out. And the appellate court is reviewing a trial court opinion. And the reason for the appellate court's reversal and remand of the case of the judgment against Ruth is super nuanced. It has to do with a very, very granular understanding of the facts. You have to Know that there were two movements of the chair, as the trial court found the facts to be. And you have to sense that the trial court didn't make findings about intent with respect to the first movement of the chair. So also note it's confusing because the appellate court is dealing with very different versions of events. There's Naomi's and there's Brian's. Bryan's is really the one that matters for your understanding and reading of the case. That's what you should focus on because that's what the appellate court was working off of. That's what the trial court was working off of. And also the legal issue is nuanced here. Again, the trial court did make findings about Brian's intent when he moved the chair back, but not when he initially moved it. And that's what the appellate court took issue with. That is nuanced. So imagine what kind of evidence the trial court, when the case goes back down, might look at to determine whether Brian knew with substantial certainty that moving the chair would cause harm to Ruth. Why do I want you to imagine that? Because that is exactly the kind of analysis that you are going to do on your exam. Let's start building your outline. We've read the case, we understand it. Let's start building your exam outline. You're going to have a section of your outline that applies to all intentional torts, and it's going to be about whether the defendant had the requisite intent for the plaintiff to prove one of the intentional torts that might apply. Assault, battery, false imprisonment, etc. So your issue, you're going to have a header that said, was there intent? Maybe. It's as simple as that. Or you're probably going to describe what the event was. So here, if this were your exam problem, Garrett v. Daly, your header that flags for your professor that you're going to start talking about this particular issue in the fact pattern is probably Ruth's fractured hip. And you bold it and you underline it. You put, I wouldn't put it in caps, I don't like those, but you make it super obvious to the court. We're talking about this injury now. And then the next section may say, you know, you may have a big eye, a big Roman numeral one for that first heading. And then you're gonna roadmap the issues. You're gonna say, one issue is whether Ruth can prove that Brian Daly engaged in battery and intentional tort when he moved the chair several times and she fractured her hip when she tried to sit down in it. One issue is whether Brian had the requisite intent, such that Ruth can establish a battery. There may be other issues you roadmap there too, right? Maybe consent or maybe self-defense or whatever it is. Okay. So then you may have a third header. Maybe this one's italicized and it's just by the number one. So you're in the third nest, and you write down something like Can Ruth prove that Brian intended to cause a battery? Question mark. Okay, you flag for your professor that you're talking about intent. Now we need to get into it. So the next thing you do is you write your issue statement. One issue is whether Ruth can prove that Brian had the intent to cause a battery when Brian moved the chair initially and sat down in it, or when he moved the chair back to try to catch Ruth. He's not she's not going to be able to prove that in moving the chair back he had the right intent. Because in that instance, Brian probably didn't know that moving the chair back would cause her to be injured. Rather, he saw that she definitely would be injured if the chair wasn't there. So by moving it, his intent, he knew with substantial certainty that he might be able to help her, not fall. So that was probably his intent there. But one issue is whether when Brian moved the chair initially, he knew with substantial certainty that Ruth would try to sit there and that he would cause injury to her or offensive contact. Now you're gonna state these a little bit better in your outline. You're gonna use the language from the cases, but I'm just sort of outlining your outline for you. So in our outline, we've written headers, we've written a roadmap, we've written a rule statement. Y'all, that's already in your outline now. You're gonna drop that into your exam answer when you see that intent is an issue. Oh boy, we've already done a ton of great writing. We've already got some points. You don't have to come up with those formulations, put blanks in where, you know, instead of saying Brian Daly, you would say the tort feaser or the defendant, or better yet, put the names of the people and their identities from the actual problem. But you're just going to put placeholders in your outline. And then you just copy that over into your exam answer. You plug and play the right information about the tort feasor and the injured party, and you are off to the races with your analysis. And this is where the fun part is. This is where you get a ton of points on your exam. So you need to, let's say this was your exam problem, the facts of Garrett V. Daly, you need to do some analysis now, like the trial court is gonna do when the case is on remand and sent back. Did Brian know with substantial certainty that moving the chair the first time initially would cause harm? Well, you're gonna use all the facts from the problem to try to prove that and one way or the other. And we don't have really any facts in this opinion for you to do that. We don't have the trial court's detailed factual findings. We don't have the testimony exactly of what people said, but you're gonna look at what people said, what they did, who they are, and the circumstances. So everything could be a fact that you use one way or the other. So for example, if these facts are in the problem, Brian might argue that he did not have the requisite intent. Let's say everyone had been standing for a while at the party away from the chairs. So he didn't think Ruth was going to sit there. Let's say a lot of time passed between when Brian initially moved the chair and when Ruth sat down in it, right? Or tried to sit down in it. If a lot of time passed, it's hard for Ruth to say, hey, Brian really intended for me to get hurt. Because Brian probably didn't see that happening an hour later, that Ruth would try to sit down and miss her chair. Let's say people were in a different part of the yard most of the time, most of that day. Let's say Ruth made a statement, I just want to stand today. I need to stretch my legs. If she said that, it tends to show, and Brian heard it, Brian probably didn't intend to cause that harmful or offensive contact. Now, let's say on the other hand, everyone at the party was sitting and Ruth was running around getting people things they needed and then was going to sit down. Well, if everyone was sitting, maybe that tends to prove that Brian knew with substantial certainty that Ruth would sit too. Let's say that Brian made a statement, ah, you know, want to play a prank on Ruth today, and people heard that. Maybe that would tend to show that he intended and knew with substantial certainty that this act would cause her harm. Maybe Brian has a tendency to do this. Could that be evidence? Maybe he does it in school to his friends, and he he does it to Naomi, his mom. He's pulling chairs out from everybody. Look, all those facts could help one side or the other prove the case. You need to look at the facts and the problem and use them creatively and persuasively like a lawyer would to set out what the best arguments of both sides will be at the trial court level. That's the level that your professor is interested in, is what arguments would you make to the trial judge? So all those are facts you should be ready to use in the exam. It's facts like that for a fact pattern like this. But the rule you get about this from this case is how to prove intent for an intentional tort like battery. To do that, you need to show that the tort visa or defendant knew with substantial certainty that their actions would cause harmful or offensive contact. That is your rule for your outline. That rule will apply for any intentional tort like battery or assault. So look for facts on the exam that call into question whether the defendant knew with substantial certainty that their actions could or would cause harm. That might be an issue that you need to discuss. And it may not. Maybe if it's very clear that the defendant intended to cause this harm, you probably don't need to discuss intent. So don't get into it. Only drop in this section of your outline into your exam answer if you spot that particular issue. So that's how you should be ready to use this case on your exam. And that's what I want you to be thinking about every time you read a case like this, because that's what matters is how you're going to use it on the exam. By the way, why did Naomi testify against her son? Why did Naomi throw her son on the bus? Well, maybe under the bus, maybe it was the truth. Maybe also there was some kind of, I've wondered, weird insurance policy in place back then, such that if Ruth could prove that Brian engaged in an intentional tort, someone's insurance policy was going to pay for the injuries. I don't know. I don't know. But that's an interesting thing. And and Naomi also could just be telling the truth, and her son may have been lying. Maybe the court believed the wrong party. But in any event. By the way, when the case went back down to the trial court, what did it find? It actually found adequate evidence that Brian knew with substantial certainty that Ruth would attempt to sit down where the chair had been. It found that Brian had intent because he knew with substantial certainty when he initially moved the chair that Ruth would try to sit down where the chair had been. So the trial court actually entered a judgment for Ruth and against Brian, eleven thousand dollars plus costs. So and that's the costs of like filing the suit, taking depositions, things like that. You'll learn about that in civil procedure. But that's not in your textbook, probably. It's not in the opinion, certainly. It could be in the notes afterwards. So that's not necessarily information you need to know, but it's helpful to see how the trial court applied those facts. So that is Garrett v. Daly. I know I did a long discussion of it, but it's because it's one of those early cases, because I think it's kind of hard to understand sometimes for law students. And because I wanted you to see not just an understanding of the case from our discussion, but what's important, how you'll build it into your outline of your exam answer and how you will deploy that outline on your exam when you see those facts in the issue spot or problem that trigger it. All right, everybody, I hope you enjoyed this episode. We will see you next time.

SPEAKER_01 32:43

That's it for today's episode of Law School Decoded. Visit us online at lawschooldecoded.com and make sure to subscribe. Until next time, keep decoding the law one step at a time.