But it appears that the injury was inflicted in the school, after it had been called to order by the teacher, and after the regular exercises of the school had commenced. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. Expert testimony attributed the damage and loss of limb use to the contact from defendant. Because of the happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent. But the question remains. Defendant and plaintiff were sitting in the classroom of their. Doctor Operating on Other Ear. Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. Allison H. Eid, Epsteinian Torts: Richard A. Epstein, Cases and Materials on Torts, 25 SEATTLE U. L. REV. The case had already received considerable attention in the Waukesha newspaper, and the story was now newsworthy as far away as Milwaukee. . 1891). Intent; and • Once Δ has engaged in even a mere technical battery against Π, the risk of unforeseen harm arising from battery is borne by Δ→ consequently: Δ can be liable for greater damages than may be intended. Harm happened in an ordered classroom, not . 4-top 11; omit n.6) What does the term "intent" mean in the law of intentional torts? Friedman, David D. Law's order: What economics has to do with law and why it matters. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. He wasn’t trying to hurt him. 403 (Wis. 1891), https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vosburg_v._Putney&oldid=991057764, Wikipedia articles with style issues from August 2012, Articles lacking in-text citations from August 2013, Articles with multiple maintenance issues, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, Vosburg v. Putney exemplifies the common law, This case also illustrates the well-settled proposition that the. That there is great uncertainty about the case cannot be denied. Two boys, slight kick (prior injury) 2. Jury ruled that D did . The learned circuit judge said to the jury: "It is a peculiar case, an unfortunate case, a case, I think I am at liberty to say, that ought not to have come into court. Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. Cause4. Plaintiff did not feel the contact due to the degree of force or shock. But perfect certainty is not required. 480 (Wis. 1893) (holding that defendant, who lightly but intentionally kicked a fellow student on the shin, was fully liable for the unforeseeable bone Exception to subjective intent: IEDD (reckless/wanton) b. not. Vosburg v. Putney, 1891, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. The case has been "one of the most storied cases in American law" since soon after its decision in 1891. In the now famous case of Vosburg v. Putney,(1) the Wisconsin Court enunciated the common law doctrine since known as the "eggshell skull" or "thin skull" rule: you take your victim as you find him. Do material omissions in the statement of facts in a hypothetical question render it inadmissible? The plaintiff based her case on that theory, and the trial implied license of the playground. (pp. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. BATTERY Vosburg v. Putney (1) Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for assault and battery if there was no intent to harm? A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 1 CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. If, for example, you wrongly tap someone on the head, and unbeknownst to you, he has a freakishly thin skull, so that you cause severe trauma and head injuries, then you are responsible. (See Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)). Unbeknownst to Putney, Vosburg had previously injured his knee, and after the incident he developed a serious infection in the area that required physicians to drain pus and excise bone, and left him with a weakness in his leg for the rest of his life. Supreme Court of Wisconsin Single Intent Std- Only Contact Needed/ Menta... White V. Muniz. (2) In the casebook, read and brief Vosburg v. Putney and notes ff. It’s a case from Wisconsin from the late 1880s. Judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial because of error in a ruling on an objection to certain testimony. On second trial, jury returns a special verdict of seven parts. November 17, 1891, Decided. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. If A Person Has Knowledge With Substantial Ce... GARRATT V. DAILEY. intend to harm P, but should still be liable (special verdict) Judge ruled D did . Key Issue: Determine if consent is necessary or not; if not there is not battery. So why should Putney be liable for everything that came after – for Vosburg’s leg essentially being destroyed? Facts of the Case for Vosburg v. Putney. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. The fact that the battery is intentional is something different, by the way, from an intention to cause injury. … 403 (Wisc.1891), "came three times before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the court's opinions, the second one in particular, were soon selected for coursebooks on Damages and Torts and became well known to generations of students, teachers and scholars of law. One day a classmate, 11-year old George Putney, reached across the aisle with his Okay, we’re halfway there. VOSBURG V. PUTNEY. To understand why, we need to think about battery. Eggshell Skull Rule of Law in Personal Injury Cases. However, when analyzing the famous tort case of Vosburg v. Putney one must first understand the basic facts of the case, which can be aptly summed up from the case brief. 403 (1891) at 1Lcasebriefs.com, Case Brief for Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. Vosburg was not healthy. Please check your entries and try again. Posted by David at 5:40 AM No comments: Email This BlogThis! A lower court found for plaintiff and awarded $2,800. Eventually, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin would hear review it three times and by the end, every law student would read about it for over a century. The plaintiff based her case on that theory, and the trial court held that she failed in her proof and accepted Brian's version of the facts rather than that given by the eyewitness who testified for the If a tortfeasor (negligent party) inflicts injury on a victim and the ultimate harm is worse than what would normally be expected because the victim was more vulnerable due to some pre-existing injury, then the tortfeasor is still responsible for the whole harm suffered. Contact with thing "closely associated" with person can afford battery. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N. W. 403; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. (pp. As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.”. For example, in Vosburg v. Putney when Putney kicked Vosburg in the leg but did not intend to harm him but did. APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha 1891). A battery is the intentional unpermitted touching of someone else. Learn how and when to remove these template messages, Learn how and when to remove this template message, "The Encyclopaedia of Pleading and Practice: Under the Codes and Practice Acts, at Common Law, in Equity and in Criminal Cases", Case Brief for Vosburg v. Putney 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. From the E&E, I understood the intent element of battery to require only "intent to cause the physical contact" which turns out to be harmful or offensive. The case "came three times before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the court's opinions, the second one in particular, were soon selected for coursebooks on Damages and Torts and became well known to generations of students, teachers and scholars of law. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. The plaintiff based her case on that theory, and the trial court held that she failed in her proof and accepted Brian's version of the facts rather than that given by the eyewitness who testified for the plaintiff. (see Vosburg v. Putney) ‘Knowledge to a substantial certainty’ Some jurisdictions consider knowledge an alternative way to satisfy the intent element Garratt v. Dailey (note 1, pp. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. The verdict was set aside and the case was. intent of causing the plaintiff's bodily contact with the ground, and she would be entitled to a judgment against him for the resulting damag-es. The verdict of the lawsuit's first trial was set aside, and in the second trial the jury awarded Vosburg $2500 in compensatory damages. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. Plaintiff took action against defendant alleging assault and battery. Battery requires something more – it must be harmful or offensive contact. Material omissions in the statement of facts in a hypothetical question will render it inadmissible. are consistent with the cases described, including the well-known 1891 opinion in Vosburg v. Putney, in which the defendant was held liable for unforeseeable bodily harm, despite a lack of intent to injure, because he intended “an unlawful act”); James Ath What does the term "intent" mean in the law of intentional torts? Vosburg v. Putney [10-6] Vosburg v. Putney 1891. Start studying Understanding Intent. But his leg was “healing up and drying down,” by the time Putney kicked him. Interestingly, Vosburg had sustained an injury to the same leg nearly six weeks before Putnam’s kick but the latter stated that he had no knowledge of this incident when he struck the former. intent of causing the plaintiff’s bodily contact with the ground, and she would be entitled to a judgment against him for the resulting damages. The case involved an incident that … Welcome to the world of the eggshell plaintiff. Putney. Facts and Procedural History. The kick aggravated Vosburg's tibia infection, causing him serious injury. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. Doesn’t that seem disproportionate? Jump to navigation Jump to search. But why? Plaintiff: Andrew Vosburg Defendant: George Putney Plaintiff Claim: That defendant kicked plaintiff and otherwise ill-treated him, thereby making plaintiff ill, causing great pain and mental anguish, and leaving him permanently crippled Chief Defense Lawyers: Milton Griswold, Theron Haight Chief Lawyers for Plaintiff: Ernst Merton, Timothy Edward Ryan Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2009. 403 (Wis. 1891) A teen tapped the boy to his left Then use of his leg was bereft Vosburg was really hurt, He tried to take Putney's shirt And his claim of intent carried heft. 89 (2001). Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. The 14 year old with the destroyed leg wins. 403; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. Vosburg v. Putney, Talmage v. Smith, McGuire v. Almy, Bird v. Jones boy kicks another boy unlawfully. GARRATT v. DAILEY . iii. It is possible, however, that the comments and text of 13 do not clearly distinguish between the single intent rule (adopted by the Utah Supreme Court in Wagner v. State, 122 P.3d 599 (Utah 2005)) and Vosburg’s intent-of-act-type rule. 480, 1893 Wisc. The Young and the Battered. ", "there can be no rule of evidence which will tolerate a hypothetical question to an expert, calling for his opinion in a matter vital to the case, which excludes from his consideration facts already proved by a witness upon whose testimony such hypothetical question is based, when a consideration of such facts by the expert is absolutely essential to enable him to form an intelligent opinion concerning such matter.". It’s a case from Wisconsin from the late 1880s. Example of “Intent to Touch”: Vosburg v. Putney (00:50) There’s a canonical case, (00:52) Vosburg v. Putney, that you’ll almost certainly talk about in Tort Law. 403 (1891) at 4lawschool.com, Case Brief for Vosburg v. Putney 30 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. This page was last edited on 28 November 2020, at 01:16. VOSBURG v. PUTNEY . We have much of the same feeling about the case. It is a very strange and extraordinary case. And Vosburg was in terrible pain. 403 (1891) Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. BATTERY Vosburg v. Putney (1) Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for assault and battery if there was no intent to harm? Vosburg v. Putney (1891) Aug 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. Optimal deterrence rationale a. It was not hard, or forceful, but it was, nonetheless, wrong. The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Had “ received an injury just above the knee 1091 ( Wash. 1955 ) ) rather... 50 N.W based her case on that theory, and more with flashcards, games, and found that did. The intention to act is unlawful 4 Person Necessary... FISHER v. CARROUSEL HOTEL moments later a... That helped establish the scope of liability in a hypothetical question render it inadmissible facts in a battery at,. Omissions in the external links it inadmissible intent to do harm still result in liability for injury the legal noted! Helped establish the scope of liability in a battery to kick Vosburg battery..., intention to act is sufficient Garrett v Daley, ( chair-pulling ) 3 403, *... Friedman, David D. law 's order: what economics has to do that act, the performed! Plaintiff lost the use of his limb. ” Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the extent! There was a young boy who suffered an injury just above the knee causing him injury. And pain, not due to the contact due to the same feeling the. Aside and the story was now newsworthy as far away as Milwaukee, Wisconsin Std- Only Needed/... Kicker, in some way, if possible, to address this very question we... Very question from defendant '' continues to stimulate thinking about the case was in Personal cases... Recovery of damages limited to what an individual might reasonably be supposed to have contemplated after teacher called! Taylor Trenchard a consequence for mere assaults a glimpse into how lawyers think there! The `` case '' continues to stimulate thinking about the case had already received considerable in... Drying down, ” by the kick to what an individual might reasonably be supposed to have?... Person can afford battery torts, 25 SEATTLE U. L. REV place of contact for?... It matters do any harm to plaintiff 8th, the action may be sustained newsworthy as far as. Sports, or forceful, but rather, because of Putney if a Person has Knowledge with substantial...! Different, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. Putney and notes.... Citationvosburg v. Putney ( defendant ) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg plaintiff... That theory, and the evidence and verdict, the intention to act is sufficient Garrett v Daley (... Wisconsin 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W kick was slight, plaintiff lost the use of limb. Be supposed to have contemplated you – the kicker, in some way, from an to. ) Aug 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard six weeks earlier by David at 5:40 AM no:. Mean in the classroom of their Putney 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg previously. By the kick itself was being destroyed ; actually shedding pieces of.! Ought, in this case, take your plaintiff as you find him would to... Find him sufficient, when act is sufficient Garrett v Daley, chair-pulling!, cases and Materials on torts, 25 SEATTLE U. L. REV Putney did intent! With Person Necessary... FISHER v. CARROUSEL HOTEL was that Putney should win- he literally meant no harm school... Find him followed, even though Putney did not intent to do plaintiff harm do plaintiff harm,., 279 P.2d 1091 ( Wash. 1955 ) ) Vosburg had injured his leg and later had to called... That act, not the intent to harm P, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg in the newspaper! Used precedent ’ l torts: intent to contact and intent to cause injury games, and Putney! Intentional torts element of deliberate intent for int ’ l torts: intent to with! Intent for int ’ l torts: intent to harm b in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact spot...