Untitled document (56)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
South Texas College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1342
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by MajorIceHamster4
GARRATT V DAILEY 1.
How would Ms. Garratt's lawyer prove actual damages?
Ms. Garratt's lawyer would have to have proven to the satisfaction of the trial court that Dailey moved the chair while she was in the act of sitting down, therefore, his action would patently have been for the purpose or with the intent of causing her bodily contact with the ground 2.
Note that the trial judge was the finder of fact both times. Why do you think his findings of fact were different the second time?
The findings of the fact changed because perhaps he reconsidered the evidence and testimony in light of the new legal standard, and found that the boys actions were not accidental nor innocent but perhaps harmful, or for example another reason could be that the judge wanted to avoid another appeal and reversal by the higher court, and set his decision to align with the legal doctrine. 3.
Can a child five years and nine months old have an intent to do harm to another? And if so, how can that intent be "fault"? Suppose that a boy of seven, playing with a bow and arrow, aims at the feet of a girl of five but the arrow hits her in the eyes. Is he liable?
Yes, he is liable since he pointed the bow and arrow at her face. 4.
Can a four-year old child who strikes his babysitter in the throat, crushing her larynx, be held liable for an intentional tort?
No, the court rejected the argument that the four year old was incapable of being held liable for the intent. 5.
At common law, parents are not liable for the torts of their children unless the plaintiff can show some fault on the part of the parents through, for example, negligence in supervising the child. Some states enacted statutes that make parents liable for their child's malicious torts. Can a young child commit a tort in a "malicious" state of mind?
It is best known that minors can be held liable for their torts because they are fully aware and capable of their actions such as at the young age of seven, there brain capactity has eveolved and as they grow they pick up on there everyday surroundings, they will know the differences between right from wrong
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help