CA Q 29. Does this disposition of the Garratt case mean that the Washington Supreme Court thought that the trial judge made an error in finding the original facts that it did, OR is the Washington Supreme Court simply giving the trial judge a second opportunity to apply those same original facts (as well as some potentially new additional ones) to the LAW that the Supreme Court has articulated in the holding in this case?

Probably the Washington Supreme Court was mostly concerned that the trial judge may not have even CONSIDERED the possibility that the plaintiff might have been able to prove her claim for the tort of “battery” by using the legal concept of “IMPLIED” INTENT. Since the trial judge’s findings of fact do not appear even to address the possibility that the plaintiff might have proven her claim by providing evidence of Brian Dailey’s IMPLIED intent, the Washington Supreme Court decided to give the trial judge an opportunity to correct this legal mistake.

Thus, it is pretty clear from this opinion that the court is giving the trial judge an opportunity to apply the facts (BOTH as originally found by the court, as well as possibly some additional facts yet to be proven by the plaintiff when the case is sent back to the trial court) to see if they might be legally sufficient to establish IMPLIED intent. If so, then the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the re-hearing of this case; and if not, then the plaintiff will still lose, since the trial judge has already determined that Brian Dailey did not possess the requisite “actual” or “specific” intent for a “battery.”
© 2016 Edward C. Martin Contact Me