that he knew with a substantial certainty where the Plaintiff would try to sit. The trial judge entered a judgment for Ms. Garratt for $11,000.) Pre-Existing Rules: The court considered intent and its place in the law of battery and cited clause (a) of § 13, specifically the Character of Actor’s Intention. Intent for battery may be implied where the defendant acts with a "substantial certainty " that harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person will result from the defendant's intended course of action. Reasoning: The court reasoned that if, in addition to the Plaintiff falling, it was proved that when the Defendant moved the chair, he knew with a substantial certainty that the Plaintiff would try and sit down where the chair had originally been, the Plaintiff would
be entitled to the judgment. The court stated that without that knowledge, there would be nothing wrongful about Brian’s act in moving the chair, and as a result, no liability. The court said before the Plaintiff’s actions can be dismissed, there should be no question about the issue of intent, and the case should be remanded for clarification to cover the Defendant’s knowledge.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read both pages?
- Fall '14
- Marie Boyd
- Appellate court, substantial certainty