CA Q 15. The trial court made the following findings of fact (see page 1 of the case, paragraph 3):

(1) "that when the defendant, Brian Dailey, moved the chair in question he did not have any wilful or unlawful purpose in doing so;"

(2) "that he did not have any intent to injure the plaintiff, or any intent to bring about any unauthorized or offensive contact with her person or any objects appurtenant thereto;" and,

(3) "that the circumstances which immediately preceded the fall of the plaintiff established that the defendant, Brian Dailey, did not have purpose, intent or design to perform a prank or to effect an assault and battery upon the person of the plaintiff."

HOW did these findings of fact affect the outcome of this case at the trial level?

The trial court determined, based upon these findings, supra, that Brian Dailey did not have the requisite INTENT to commit the tort of "battery" as alleged in the plaintiff's complaint against him.
© 2016 Edward C. Martin Contact Me