[1][2][3] Brian Dailey, boy aged 5 years, 9 months, moved a lawn chair on which Ruth Garratt was going to sit down.

The trial judge found in favor of Dailey, stating that there was no intent to harm Garratt.

The issue before the Court was whether a lack of intent to cause harm precludes a battery charge.

Relying on the definition of battery from the Restatement of Torts, the Court held that battery could only be found if it is shown that the boy knew with "substantial certainty" that after the chair was moved Garratt would attempt to sit in the chair's original position.

The absence of an intent to injure or to play a joke is not sufficient to absolve the accused of liability.