Case Commander

A real session.

Recorded 27 October 2026 with live AI on Garratt v. Dailey. Quoted exactly; the student's lines were typed by us to test it.

Professor

[…] The trial court found Brian had no wilful or unlawful purpose, no intent to injure the plaintiff, and no design to perform a prank . […] So here’s a question for you to chew on: given that the trial court believed Brian didn’t mean to hurt her or play a trick on her, why didn’t that automatically end the case? What’s left to argue?

1 of 4

Garratt v. Dailey

46 Wash. 2d 197 (1955) · the court's own words

¶3“IV. That the preponderance of the evidence in this case establishes that when the defendant, Brian Dailey, moved the chair in question he did not have any wilful or unlawful purpose in doing so; that he did not have any intent to injure the plaintiff […]; 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.”
¶12“Character of actor’s intention. In order that an act may be done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to a particular person, either the other or a third person, the act must be done for the purpose of causing the contact or apprehension or with knowledge on the part of the actor that such contact or apprehension is substantially certain to be produced.”
¶17A battery would be established if, in addition to plaintiff’s fall, it was proved that, when Brian moved the chair, he knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit down where the chair had been. […] The mere absence of any intent to injure the plaintiff or to play a prank on her or to embarrass her, or to commit an assault and battery on her would not absolve him from liability if in fact he had such knowledge.

Add your reading.
Your cases, notes and outlines, split into numbered paragraphs.
Get called on.
It asks before it tells, changes the facts, and cites the paragraph.
Know where you stand.
Checkpoints show what you can apply, from Skimming to Command.

Four levels of understanding.

1
Skimming
You've seen the case. You recognize the name.
2
Familiarity
You can recall the facts, the rule and the holding.
3
Understanding
You can explain why the court decided as it did.
4
Command
You can apply it to new facts and defend your reasoning on your own.

Request a demo.

We're opening to law students in small groups, and we'd like to hear from professors and schools.

Be ready when you're called on.

A real session.

Add your reading.

Get called on.

Know where you stand.

Four levels of understanding.

Skimming

Familiarity

Understanding

Command

Request a demo.