Representing Garratt v. Dailey as a legal syllogism
First syllogism (stating, analyzing, and deciding the question of law about intent) in the state supreme court
Major premise: Legal rule
State the legal rule here:
Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for battery if Defendant
Where are you getting the legal rule from? (From a
intentionally inflicts a harmful bodily contact upon Plaintiff.
statute? From a holding? From an interpretation of
doctrine?)
(Rule is an interpretation of common law doctrine.)
State the issue (question of law) in X/Y format here:
Issue (question of law)
Does knowledge to a substantial certainty that a harmful contact
Where are you getting X from?
Can X be stated at different levels of generality? If so, will result [X] count as intent to bring about a harmful contact [Y]
what is the best level of generality and why?
as required for battery?
Where are you getting Y from?
X generalizes possible facts (not yet found by trial court), stating a
Are there choices among Y1, Y2, etc?
class of mental states that raise a common question.
If so, what is the best Y category and why?
Y comes from an interpretation of common law doctrine, as
Is there a better (normative) way to frame the issue?
evidenced in the Restatement of Torts.
Minor premise: Issue answer (a.k.a. decision rule)
State the issue answer here:
Knowledge to a substantial certainty that a harmful contact will
Notice that the issue-answer (sometimes called the
decision rule) answers the issue-question, and typically result [X] counts as intent to bring about a harmful contact [Y] as
has the same X and Y elements as that question.
required for battery.
Rationale for the issue answer
State the rationale here: Liability for battery requires a wrongful
Semantic? Legislative intent? Purpose/policy?
act by Defendant against Plaintiff (bottom of p. 60 – top of p. 61).
Does the scope of the proposed issue answer closely fit The wrongfulness required for battery requires something more
the rule’s background justification, or is it
than negligence or even recklessness; defendant must know, to a
overinclusive, underinclusive, or both?
substantial certainty, that his or her act will result in a harmful
Is it a hard case because the reasons conflict?
contact (p. 60). Knowledge to a substantial certainty suffices for
What evidence backs the persuasive reasons?
wrongfulness; purpose or desire to injure or embarrass Plaintiff
What authorizing reasons for the persuasive reasons?
also suffices but is not necessary. Authority for these conclusions:
Any excluding reasons (take reasons off table)?
Mercer (Indiana) & Vosburg (Wisconsin), pp. 60-61; Restatement
Precedent as a reason for issue answer? If so, what is
of Torts, comment on clause (a), pp. 59-60.
the best interpretation of precedent?
Conclusion: Holding
State the holding here: Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for battery if
Notice that the holding swaps the issue answer into the Defendant, knowing to a substantial certainty that a harmful
legal rule, and thus states a rule of law.
contact will result, inflicts a harmful bodily contact upon Plaintiff.
Disposition (e.g. grant or deny the motion; affirm or
reverse the judgment below, or reverse and
remand).
State the disposition here (if applicable): Remand to trial court to
find whether Brian knew to a substantial certainty that Ruth
would attempt to sit where the chair had been.
Second syllogism (deciding the question of fact on remand and applying the law to the facts) in the trial court
Major premise: Legal rule
State the legal rule here:
Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for battery if Defendant, knowing
Notice that the legal rule that begins the second
syllogism is the holding, which is the conclusion of to a substantial certainty that a harmful contact will result, inflicts
the first syllogism.
a harmful bodily contact upon Plaintiff.
State the question of fact here:
Issue (question of fact)
When he moved the chair, did Brian know to a substantial
Where are you getting the question of fact from?
certainty that Ruth would attempt to sit where the chair had
been?
Minor premise: Finding of fact
State the finding of fact here: When he moved the chair, Brian
Who has authority to find the facts? Where are you
knew to a substantial certainty that Ruth would attempt to sit
getting the finding of fact from?
where the chair had been.
Evidence supporting the finding of fact
State the evidence supporting the finding of fact here: Ruth had
Is the question of fact hard; if so, why?
already begun to sit down when Brian moved the chair and sat in
it. Given that timing, Brian knew to a substantial certainty that
Ruth would attempt to sit where the chair had been.
Conclusion: Disposition
State the disposition here:
Trial court finds Brian liable to Ruth for battery. Remedy: Trial
Which decision-maker (judge presiding at bench trial;
jury; appellate court) has authority to apply the law court orders Brian to compensate Ruth for her $11,000 injury.
to the facts and announce the disposition?