The trial court adopted the defendant’s version of the facts in this case.
So, what about the plaintiff’s version of the facts? What happens to these facts in this case?
The plaintiff had based her initial claim for "battery" on her original version of the facts (I.e., "that Brian had pulled the chair out from under the plaintiff while she was in the act of sitting down"). However, after the trial judge adopted Brian's version of the facts, the plaintiff's alternate version of the facts became totally irrelevant in this case. It is as if those facts never even existed.
Therefore, the ONLY way for the plaintiff to prevail in her claim for the tort of "battery" against Brian is somehow to establish a "battery" against Brian based upon THESE facts (I.e., Brian's own version of the facts as adopted by the court in this case).