Substantial certainty doctrine: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
added more info including Garratt v. Dailey |
deleted template (woohoo) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{multiple issues| |
|||
{{Underlinked|date=September 2014}} |
|||
{{unreferenced|date=February 2008}} |
|||
}} |
|||
In [[law]], the '''substantial certainty doctrine''' is the assumption of intent even if the actor did not intend the result, but knew with ''substantial certainty'' the effect would occur as a result of his action.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Substantial Certainty Law and Legal Definition {{!}} USLegal, Inc.|url=https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/substantial-certainty/|access-date=2020-08-25|website=definitions.uslegal.com}}</ref> The doctrine can be used by courts as a test to determine whether or not a defendant committed a [[tort]]. For example, in ''[[Garratt v. Dailey]]'' (1955), the [[Washington Supreme Court]] remanded a case back to the lower courts to determine whether or not the five year-old defendant "knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been."<ref>Garratt v. Dailey - 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)</ref> |
In [[law]], the '''substantial certainty doctrine''' is the assumption of intent even if the actor did not intend the result, but knew with ''substantial certainty'' the effect would occur as a result of his action.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Substantial Certainty Law and Legal Definition {{!}} USLegal, Inc.|url=https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/substantial-certainty/|access-date=2020-08-25|website=definitions.uslegal.com}}</ref> The doctrine can be used by courts as a test to determine whether or not a defendant committed a [[tort]]. For example, in ''[[Garratt v. Dailey]]'' (1955), the [[Washington Supreme Court]] remanded a case back to the lower courts to determine whether or not the five year-old defendant "knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been."<ref>Garratt v. Dailey - 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)</ref> |
||
Revision as of 23:57, 25 August 2020
In law, the substantial certainty doctrine is the assumption of intent even if the actor did not intend the result, but knew with substantial certainty the effect would occur as a result of his action.[1] The doctrine can be used by courts as a test to determine whether or not a defendant committed a tort. For example, in Garratt v. Dailey (1955), the Washington Supreme Court remanded a case back to the lower courts to determine whether or not the five year-old defendant "knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair which he moved had been."[2]
References
- ^ "Substantial Certainty Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc". definitions.uslegal.com. Retrieved 2020-08-25.
- ^ Garratt v. Dailey - 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955)
 | This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |