This case comes before the supreme court on appeal by the plaintiff from the superior court. The trial court dismissed the case. The supreme court sends the case back to the trial court (i.e. it remands the case). The supreme court wants the trial court to reexamine the case by taking a second look at the facts , in light of the supreme court's hold.

Brain Dailey, defendant, pulled a chair out from under Garratt, plaintiff, while she was in the process of sitting.

Battery consists of the following elements:

1. an intentional infliction
2. of a harmful bodily contact
3. upon another

For the intent element of battery, does a person have to intend to cause the battery? Or do they merely have to know to a substantial certainty that their actions will lead to a harmful bodily contact?

Knowledge to a substantial certainty is enough "intent" to constitute a battery if a person knows to a substantial certainty that their actions will lead to a harmful touch.

Here, the defendant hit the plaintiff with the ground. He did not have to intend to hit the plaintiff with the ground. All he had to know was that his actions would to a substantial certainty lead to a harmful touching of the plaintiffs posterior with the ground.