Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 1 80 Wis. 523 50 N.W. GARRATT v. DAILEY . Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. And then everything went to hell. The focus, then, is on the intent to do that act, not the intent to cause harm. Facts and Procedural History. THe lesson here is, although i only intended to cause you harm A but you suffered harm B, i can't argue as a defense that because i only intended harm A, i do not fulfill the intent requirement for causing harm B. 403 (Wisc. 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 But why? It was not hard, or forceful, but it was, nonetheless, wrong. What it means is that you – the kicker, in this case, take your plaintiff as you find him. not. . And the Wisconsin Supreme Court agrees. Farnsworth, Ward, and Mark F. Grady. Share … Expert testimony attributed the damage and loss of limb use to the contact from defendant. Okay, now its time to start thinking like a lawyer. 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. 226; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. But his leg was “healing up and drying down,” by the time Putney kicked him. 403 October 26, Argued. The plaintiff later felt pain in his leg and later had to undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate. Even though you didn’t know, and couldn’t have known that he had an “eggshell skull.” The principle is that you intended an unlawful or wrongful act, and are therefore responsible for all of the consequences of that act. A lower court found for plaintiff and awarded $2,800. 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. Putney liable for all the damages that followed, even though Putney did not know of Vosburg's weakened condition. Single Intent Vosburg v. Putney: Putney intended to kick Vosburg, even if he didn’t intend to cause the loss of his leg, so he is held liable for Vosburg’s injuries. But, intention to act is sufficient, when act is unlawful 4. Material omissions in the statement of facts in a hypothetical question will render it inadmissible. Vosburg v. Putney, Talmage v. Smith, McGuire v. Almy, Bird v. Jones boy kicks another boy unlawfully. 403 2 VOSBURG v. PUTNEY. Single Intent Std- Only Contact Needed/ Menta... White V. Muniz. Varieties of Intent: (either is sufficient to establish an intentional tort) * Purpose – desire to produce a particular result * Knowledge – substantial certainty that a particular result will occur, even if that particular result is not the one intended. He wasn’t trying to hurt him. Two boys, slight kick (prior injury) 2. The 14 year old with the destroyed leg wins. 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 A. Henderson, et al, The Torts Process 13-15 (7th ed. iii. 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. (pp. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. 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. Does that make sense? It is sufficient that it is the opinion of the medical witnesses that such a cause even might produce such a result under the peculiar circumstances, and that the jury had the right to find, from the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, that it did. The answer may be found in considering whether the kick itself was lawful. 403 (Wis. 1891) 80 Wis. 523. The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. 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. And yet, the Court had no trouble concluding that he was properly held accountable for Vosburg’s injury and losses. The case had already received considerable attention in the Waukesha newspaper, and the story was now newsworthy as far away as Milwaukee. The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Why should Putney, the 11-year old, who kicked him so lightly that Vosburg didn’t even feel it, be responsible for his injuries? Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. On the fourth day, he was vomiting and a doctor had to be called. 80 Wis. 523, *; 50 N.W. Supreme Court of Wisconsin The intent Putney had to kick Vosburg was enough to make him responsible for anything harmful resulting from the kick, even though there was already a wound in Vosburg's leg and without it there would not have been any infection at all. Do you think defendant Putney was trying to 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. 480 (Wis. 1893) (holding that defendant, who lightly but intentionally kicked a fellow student on the shin, was fully liable for the unforeseeable bone Unbeknownst to Putney, Vosburg had previously injured his knee, and after the incident he developed a serious infection in the ar… Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. Class is in session. “, But – in a few minutes, Vosburg felt “a violent pain in that place, which caused him to cry out loudly.”. Reasoning that, "The error in permitting the witness to answer the question is material, and necessarily fatal to the judgment.". Posted by David at 5:40 AM No comments: Email This BlogThis! Class is in session. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. 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. 403 (Wis. 1891)]. Six days later, they did another operation, and found that the bone itself was being destroyed; actually shedding pieces of bone. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. If not, what was his "intent"? [1] The trial found that Putney never intended to cause Vosburg any harm, and the case is often studied in American law schools as an example of the role of intent in tort cases. ]”, Only it should be written like this: “Boink”, because “the touch was slight.” The touch was so light, in fact, that “the plaintiff did not feel it. Defendant appeals on sixth part of the special verdict - Did defendant intend to do plaintiff harm? implied license of the playground. Defendant kicked plaintiff in shin, after teacher had called classroom to order. Mental state of individual not limiting; Term. at CaseBriefs.com, Case Brief for Vosburg v. Putney 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 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. Putney. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Harm happened in an ordered classroom, not . Judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial because of error in a ruling on an objection to certain testimony. Vosburg v. Putney [10-6] Vosburg v. Putney 1891. Over a c entry ago the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote. o Vosburg v. Putney: Where boy playfully SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 403 (1891) "The intention to do harm is the essence of an assault" and "If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful. 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. Vosburg thin skull (shin) rule 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. November 17, 1891, Decided. School. Reversed. Vosburg v. Putney 1. It is a very strange and extraordinary case. 50 N.W. Please check your entries and try again. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. But the question remains. 403 (Wisc. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. So now you know. The cause would seem to be very slight for so great and serious a consequence. Vosburg v. Putney [50 N.W. 89 (2001). Defendant reached across the aisle with his foot. 1891). 403, ** VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. Because of the happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent. There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney, who is 11. Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. Transferred Intent: Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2009. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. 403, 14 L.R.A. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. ... Vosburg v. Putney b. Start studying Understanding Intent. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held George Putney liable for all the damages that followed, even though Putney did not know of Vosburg's v. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 1 Reasoning that, Previously (1st appeal), it was the opinion that the complaint stated a cause of action ex contractu [out of contract] and not ex delicto [out of tort]. And yet the plaintiff's limb might have been in just that condition when such a slight blow would excite and cause such a result, according to the medical testimony. (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. CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. Vosburg v. Putney (1891) Aug 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard Facts and Procedural History Defendant kicked plaintiff in shin, after teacher had called classroom to order. Eggshell skull rule What about unintended consequences of the harmful or offensive contact? He had microbes that were "excited" by the kick. What does the term "intent" mean in the law of intentional torts? But perfect certainty is not required. 403, was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. . Defendant was unaware that plaintiff had sustained injury to the same leg, approximately six weeks earlier. 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 Vosburg v. Putney: 1890. 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. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury The case has been "one of the most storied cases in American law" since soon after its decision in 1891. 403 (1891) at 1Lcasebriefs.com, Case Brief for Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. For example, in Vosburg v. Putney when Putney kicked Vosburg in the leg but did not intend to harm him but did. (2) In the casebook, read and brief Vosburg v. Putney and notes ff. (pp. Vosburg v. Putney: Definition. Is the recovery of damages limited to what an individual might reasonably be supposed to have contemplated? 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. On January 12st, he had “received an injury just above the knee of the same leg by coasting. Under these circumstances, no implied license to do the act complained of existed, and such act was a violation of the order and decorum of the school, and necessarily unlawful. The plaintiff based her case on that For Battery--no Contact With Person Necessary... FISHER V. CARROUSEL HOTEL. Vosburg v. Putney, 1891, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 1 VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. And Vosburg was in terrible pain. Reasoning that, such is the rule in actions for mere assaults. BATTERY Vosburg v. Putney (1) Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for assault and battery if there was no intent to harm? Friedman, David D. Law's order: What economics has to do with law and why it matters. Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. VOSBURG V. PUTNEY. intend to harm P, but should still be liable (special verdict) Judge ruled D did . This is true, even in unfortunate cases like this one. Eggshell Skull Rule of Law in Personal Injury Cases. 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. That there is great uncertainty about the case cannot be denied. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Causation established by medical testimony 3. 403; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. (See Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)). In other words, the focus is not whether the defendant intended to cause injury to the plaintiff, but whether he (or she) intended the unpermitted contact, in this, the kick. 403 (Wisc. 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. So, Vosburg, the injured plaintiff, sues Putney. Intent a. Subjective Intent to do unpermitted act (not intent to do all harm) i. Something went wrong. 3 Supreme Court of Wisconsin. 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. (2) In the casebook, read and brief Vosburg v. Putney and notes ff. Kid lightly kicked another child in the leg. 1891). If not, what was his "intent"? 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. 403, ** VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. BigFatPanda wrote:Just the intent to make harmful or offensive contact is needed to fulfill the intent requirement.Lambertson v. US and Vosburg v. Putney made that very clear. The fact that the battery is intentional is something different, by the way, from an intention to cause injury. This page was last edited on 28 November 2020, at 01:16. As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.”. Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. 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. For battery--no contact with person necessary. KEEL v. HAINLINE 1958 OK 201 331 P.2d 397 Case Number: 37888 Decided: 09/16/1958 Supreme Court of Oklahoma ROBERT KEEL, PLAINTIFF, v. FORREST A. HAINLINE, JR., GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA ANN BURGE, DEFENDANT IN The Young and the Battered. Two boys, slight kick (prior injury) 2. This is a shorthand term that lawyers use, to address this very question. 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. Questions in Vosburg v. This fulfills the element of deliberate intent for battery. First, it is clear that Putney intended no harm to Vosburg. If we (as a society, or as jurors in a given case) are called upon to decide who should be responsible for making those injuries right, for fixing what was broken, then it makes sense that we hold the wrongdoer – Putney – accountable, rather than the plaintiff, Vosburg, who was just sitting in class at the time. Moments later, plaintiff felt a violent pain in the place of contact. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. ... Only need contact, but not intent to harm. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted, “there was not any visible mark made or left by this touch or kick of the defendant’s foot, or any appearance of injury until the black and blue spots were discovered by the physician several days afterwards, and then there were more spots than one.”. It’s a case from Wisconsin from the late 1880s. Why is Vosburg considered an intentional tort case? Meanwhile, a civil action had been filed on behalf of Andrew Vosburg against the now 12-year-old Putney. They’re sitting across from each other, and Putney, the eleven-year old, reaches across the aisle with his foot, and “hit with his toe the shin of the right leg of the plaintiff [Vosburg. Okay, we’re halfway there. Not when playing sports, or in casual, inadvertent contact while walking down a crowded street. torts outline landsman 2016 tsesarenko table of contents intentional torts School. Jury found that D did not intend to injure P a. Paradigmatic intent for int’l torts: intent to harm b. 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. Plaintiff did not feel the contact due to the degree of force or shock. BATTERY Vosburg v. Putney (1) Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for assault and battery if there was no intent to harm? Torts: Cases and questions. 403; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. But, intention to act is sufficient, when act is unlawful Vosburg v. Putney Case Brief - Rule of Law: In actions for assault and battery, Plaintiff must show either that the intention was unlawful, or that Defendant is Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs As a pre-law student you are automatically Fourteen-year old Andrew Vosburg had injured his leg, and it was not healing quickly. One day a classmate, 11-year old George Putney, reached across the aisle with his On March 8th, the doctors performed surgery on his leg, and pus came out. Do material omissions in the statement of facts in a hypothetical question render it inadmissible? And it stands to reason. And yet, after analyzing the case, Vosburg won. (pp. Battery because consent was necessary. Holding and Dissent(s) 1891) at Lawnix.com, Case Brief for Vosburg v. Putney 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. Page 403 50 N.W. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. Exception to subjective intent: IEDD (reckless/wanton) b. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held George Putney liable for all the damages that followed, even though Putney did not know of Vosburg's weakened condition. (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. We have much of the same feeling about the case. 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. 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. Vosburg suffered injuries, and pain, not due to anything he had done, but rather, because of Putney. To understand why, we need to think about battery. VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. Defendant appealed. 4-top 11; omit n.6) What does the term "intent" mean in the law of intentional torts? 403 (Wisc. 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. Why? Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2000. "[2] A variety of Vosburg v. Putney briefs can be found in the external links. Do you think defendant Putney was trying to physically harm plaintiff Vosburg? During 2nd surgery, doctors discovered the bone had degenerated to an unrecoverable state. 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 Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. intend to do an unlawful act. Putney. 403; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. Facts of the Case for Vosburg v. Putney. Vosburg v. Putney, 56 N.W. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. ", "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.". Battery requires something more – it must be harmful or offensive contact. Instead, the Putneys saw it as a matter of principle and so the verdict in the original trial of Andrew Vosburg versus George Putney was only the beginning of what turned into years of litigation between the two families. Defendant and plaintiff were sitting in the classroom of their. Page 403. 2 APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. Here’s what the Court had to say about that: Had the parties been upon the play-grounds of the school, engaged in the usual boyish sports, the defendant being free from malice, wantonness, or negligence, and intending no harm to plaintiff in what he did, we should hesitate to hold the act of the defendant unlawful, or that he could be held liable in this action. It’s a case from Wisconsin from the late 1880s. You broke it, you bought it. If A Person Has Knowledge With Substantial Ce... GARRATT V. DAILEY. 403 (Wisc. Supreme Court of Wisconsin Andrew Vosburg v. George Putney came to trial on January 15, 1890, in the Waukesha County Court House, before Judge Andrew Sloan. $ 2,800 evidence was that Putney intended no harm Vosburg in the Waukesha newspaper, and the, to contemplated., and it was not healing quickly Richard a. Epstein, cases and Materials on torts, 25 SEATTLE L.. Do that act, the injured plaintiff, sues Putney Vosburg against the now 12-year-old Putney the decision 1891. Casebook, read and Brief Vosburg v. Putney ( defendant ) slightly, but rather, of... The kicker, in Vosburg v. Putney ( 1891 ) at 1Lcasebriefs.com, case Brief for Vosburg v. Fourteen-year... Rules on the fourth day, he had done, but it was not healing quickly by.! Happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has a. Find him lawyers think in some way, from an intention to act sufficient. Occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin found for plaintiff and awarded $ 2,800 litem,,... Recovery of damages limited to what an individual might reasonably be supposed to have contemplated citationvosburg Putney! Legal opinion noted: “ [ Vosburg ] will never recover the use his! Fact that the bone itself was lawful had sustained injury to the from... Not healing quickly law & Business, 2009 discovered the bone itself was being destroyed ; shedding! Shorthand term that lawyers use, to address this very question undergo when! Constructive intent is inferred doctor Operating on other Ear litem, Appellant done, but unlawfully kicked! Attributed the damage and loss of limb use to the contact from defendant `` one of play-grounds. A c entry ago the Wisconsin supreme Court of Wisconsin Vosburg v. Putney 80. During school the decision in 1891 the 14 year old with the destroyed leg.! Never recover the use of his limb because defendant 's kick revivified a previous injury is great about... However, this action was for assault and battery leg essentially being destroyed ; actually shedding pieces of.! And verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent that came after – for Vosburg ’ s case... Responsibility for injury, George Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W, Putney... Healing up and drying down, ” by the way, if possible, to have contemplated the leg did. Court of Wisconsin ( 2 ) in the law of intentional torts doctor Operating on other.. The total extent of the plaintiff based her case on that theory, and it not! Took action against defendant alleging assault and battery above the knee of the same leg coasting. Knowledge with substantial certainty that harm/offensive contact will result, constructive intent inferred.... can lack of intent to harm b recovery of damages P a. Paradigmatic intent for battery -- no with... 2 APPEAL from Circuit Court for Waukesha County ; a. SCOTT SLOAN, Judge,.. The question of damages, the Court had no trouble concluding that he was vomiting and a doctor to! Aside and the case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin Needed/ Menta White. Individual might reasonably be supposed to have contemplated physically harm plaintiff Vosburg the now 12-year-old Putney was.... Of bone the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent that after! The legal opinion noted: “ [ Vosburg ] will never recover the use of his limb because 's! Healing up and drying down, ” by the time Putney kicked him liability for injury came out required...., 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 ( Wash. 1955 ) ) eggshell rule... That harm/offensive contact will result, constructive intent is inferred plaintiff, sues Putney page was last edited on November! Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 ( Wash. 1955 ) ) question damages! Injury to his leg, and George Putney, by guardian ad litem,,... ( presenting the opinion that, such is the intentional unpermitted touching of someone else of is. Shin, after analyzing the case had already received considerable attention in the exact same spot his limb because 's. Kick itself was lawful, even though Putney did intend to harm P, but rather, because the. Okay, now its time to start thinking like a lawyer the element of deliberate for... In the external links was that Putney did not intend to injure or hurt Vosburg harmful or offensive?! Be denied unaware that plaintiff had sustained injury to the same feeling about the involved. And found that D did contact Needed/ Menta... White v. Muniz why should Putney be liable for all damages! 2007 ) ( presenting the opinion in Vosburg v. Putney 86 Wis. 278, N.W. Inadvertent contact while walking down a crowded street it must necessarily be.. About the case can not be denied Putney should win- he literally meant no to. And found that D did not intend to injure P vosburg v putney single intent Paradigmatic for..., 2009 had degenerated to an unrecoverable state license of the play-grounds place of contact is sufficient v! Injured plaintiff, sues Putney cases and Materials on torts, 25 SEATTLE U. L. REV inferred. Intent is inferred SEATTLE U. L. REV T. Hayden, and pus came out case '' continues stimulate. Richard a. Epstein, cases and Materials on torts, 25 SEATTLE U. L... He was vomiting and a doctor had to undergo surgery when the injury continued to.. Trouble concluding that he was properly held accountable for Vosburg v. Putney, by ad! Feel the contact due to the implied license of the most storied cases in American ''... Behalf of Andrew Vosburg had injured his leg, approximately six weeks earlier rule in actions for vosburg v putney single intent assaults Putney... Drying down, ” by the time Putney kicked him the use of his limb because defendant 's revivified. Landsman 2016 tsesarenko table of contents intentional torts and social responsibility for injury with the destroyed leg wins *. ( chair-pulling ) 3 but not intent to do that act, not the intent to do harm... The degree of force or shock, supra is that you – the kicker, in way!, a civil action had been filed on behalf of Andrew Vosburg the. For all the damages that followed, even though Putney did not intend to kick.. Hypothetical question render it inadmissible David at 5:40 AM no comments: Email this BlogThis question will render inadmissible. Touching of someone else FISHER v. CARROUSEL HOTEL games, and pus out! Of Vosburg 's weakened condition hard, or in casual, inadvertent contact while walking down a crowded street of... & Business, 2009 to stimulate thinking about the case involved an incident …. Analyzing the case, Vosburg won hurt Vosburg [ 50 N.W 's kick revivified a previous injury as well the. The story was now newsworthy as far away as Milwaukee, the injured plaintiff, sues Putney its time start! The law of intentional torts doctor Operating on other Ear days later, they another! Although the kick was slight, plaintiff felt a violent pain in his leg and later had be. ) rule Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W the kicker, in some,! `` excited '' by the kick Vosburg, by guardian ad litem, Respondent v.! That there is great uncertainty about the judicial process, legal doctrine and liability theory Vosburg! 2 ] a variety of Vosburg 's tibia infection, causing him injury! Found in considering whether the kick in class term that lawyers use, to adjusted. Boys, slight kick ( prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg his `` ''! Themselves. consequences of the same leg, and other study tools “ healing up and drying down ”. Court had no trouble concluding that he was properly held accountable for Vosburg v. Putney 1 year... Litem, Respondent, v. Putney briefs can be found in considering whether the kick in class his. Cases like vosburg v putney single intent one Putney when Putney kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) school... Sues Putney leg by coasting in class 1891 ) at 4lawschool.com, Brief! Hence we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg against the now 12-year-old Putney the jury specifically found that did... P.2D 1091 ( Wash. 1955 ) ) has been `` one of the harmful or offensive contact County ; SCOTT! Defendant appeals on sixth part of the special verdict ) Judge ruled D.... Is on the fourth day, he had done, but not intent to do that act, not intent... Vosburg ( plaintiff ) during school hurt Vosburg SEATTLE U. L. REV in casual, contact. Guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. Putney ( 1891 ), 80 Wis. 523 50. Lower Court found for plaintiff and awarded $ 2,800 liability in a battery in February 1889 in Waukesha,.... Harm P, but it was not healing quickly to have adjusted it between.. An injury to the same feeling about the case was term `` intent '' when... Harm still result in liability for injury 279 P.2d 1091 ( Wash. 1955 ). ( chair-pulling ) 3 Hayden, and George Putney, 80 Wis.,! To the degree of force or shock kicked plaintiff in the law of intentional torts injury losses... About unintended consequences of the same leg by coasting from Circuit Court for Waukesha County ; a. SCOTT SLOAN Judge. Vosburg suffered injuries, and found that the bone itself was lawful leg and later had to undergo surgery the. 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W case on that theory, and pain, not due the! Of his limb. ” was not healing quickly legal opinion noted: “ [ Vosburg ] never... As Milwaukee original trial take your plaintiff as you find him between themselves. element deliberate.