Issues Did the trial court err in dismissing the Plaintiffs claims regarding

Issues did the trial court err in dismissing the

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.

Issues : Did the trial court err in dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims regarding the intentional tort of battery? Did the Defendant know with a clear and substantial certainty that his act of moving the chair would result in the injury of the Plaintiff? Can a five- year-old child be liable for battery? Holding (and Judgment): The Appellate Court found no merit in the Plaintiff’s contention to direct the entry of a judgment of $11,000. The court said there was not enough to warrant a new trial. The case was remanded for clarification with instructions to decide whether the Defendant knew with a substantial certainty that the Plaintiff would try to sit down where the chair was originally placed. If the findings justify a change, the trial court is to alter the judgment. Yes a five year old can be liable for battery if he or she committed a wrongful act with a substantial certainty of intent. (Remanded for clarification.) (On remand, the trial judge found that the woman had begun the slow process of sitting down when the Defendant removed the chair, showing that he knew with a substantial certainty where the Plaintiff would try to sit.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read both pages?

  • Fall '14
  • Marie Boyd
  • Appellate court, substantial certainty

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture