93%(15)14 out of 15 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.
have intent to prank Ruth to the effect of an assault and battery. Answers:1.The minor did not have the dexterity and size to move the chair to put the chair under the plaintiff before her fall. 2.The defendant, Brian, did not do this maliciously with intent to harm the plaintiff. Reasoning: The trial court found that Brian had no such knowledge the plaintiff was going to sit in the chair Brian had just moved. This can be inferred from the findings, the trial court believed that such a case should be dismissed there should be no question but that the trial court had passed upon that issue. Hence, the case should be remanded
for clarification of the findings to accurately cover the question of Brian's knowledge, because intent could be inferred ergo.Holding: The cause is remanded for clarification. Given instructions to make concretefindings on the issue of whether Brian Dailey knew with solid certitude that the plaintiffwould attempt to sit down where the chair, which the defendant moved, had been, andif warranted by the findings to change the judgment.