Whether Brian could be liable for battery if he did not mean to injure Garratt but knew she was substantially certain to sit where he had moved the chair from.
Holding
Yes. Such knowledge would establish the intent required for battery, but the trial court had not expressly decided whether Brian had it. The case was remanded for a finding on that question.
Reasoning
Battery requires an intentional act that causes harmful or offensive contact. Intent exists when the actor either aims to cause the contact or knows it is substantially certain to result. Intentionally moving a chair is not enough by itself; awareness of even a serious risk may amount to negligence or recklessness rather than battery.
The trial court rejected Garratt’s account that Brian pulled the chair away as she was sitting. Under the facts it accepted, however, the absence of a wish to injure or embarrass her did not resolve whether Brian knew, when he moved the chair, that she was substantially certain to sit where it had been and fall.
A child is subject to the same battery rule as an adult. Brian’s age matters in deciding what he actually knew: his experience, capacity, and understanding bear on whether he had the required knowledge.
Because the trial court’s findings did not squarely address Brian’s knowledge, the Supreme Court remanded for clarification rather than ordering judgment for Garratt or a new trial. A finding of substantial certainty would support liability; without it, moving the chair would not establish battery.