had not been ruled in expressly in order to affect the damages. This treatment was continued, and the swelling so increased
physician), elicited on cross-examination, tends to some extent to establish
The action was brought to recover
28 0 obj
<>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<07AE52BC47813CB4DFD7C90F10A140E1><381FA4580BA8584992682237481EF098>]/Index[10 31]/Info 9 0 R/Length 96/Prev 120974/Root 11 0 R/Size 41/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream
In the now famous case of Vosburg v. Putney,' 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. This occurred in the presence of the jury, and the learned counsel of the respondent
vosburg v. putney 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. There was a slight
of the injury to plaintiff's leg. Dr. Bacon first saw the injured leg on February 25th, and Dr. Philler,
the condition of this leg as you found it?" the circuit court, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500. 4�%F ?3#�q[�f9��d�d���� The complaint charged that the defendant kicked the plaintiff in the shin in a schoolroom in Waukesha, Wisconsin, after the teacher had called the class to order. No. On
Yes. 3. He will never recover the use of his limb. SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. Though the touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg. the date of the alleged assault the plaintiff was a little more than fourteen
The plaintiff did not feel it, either on account of its being so slight or of
80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891), Wisconsin Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. There were two errors committed
The facts are stated in the opinion. On the fourth day he was vomiting, and
Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. Vosburg (plaintiff) and Putney (defendant) were both students in the same school in 1889. 1891). A. Vosburg v. Putney (Facts) - Vosburg suffered an injury to his leg.-A few days later Putney kicked him lightly in the same spot.-Vosburg did not feel the kick immediately but soon felt pain and underwent surgery.-Vosburg lost the use of the injured leg and brought tort claims against Putney for common law battery. but think that the verdict would have been for a less amount if this evidence
The plaintiff initially did not feel the kick. Then, read the case again and complete your brief. to give the plaintiff greater damages in consequence of the poverty of his father. However, Plaintiff experienced great pain, a severe infection, and surgery at the kicked place. An eleven year-old boy (Jake Putney) lightly kicks a fourteen year-old classmate (Eddie Vosburg) in the shin just below the knee, intending to embarrass him but not to cause physical harm. LEXIS 234. University of Wisconsin Law Library 975 Bascom Mall Madison, WI 53706 608-262-3394 Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. hours, both parties being pupils in the school. part upon the testimony of the plaintiff, as to what was the proximate cause
The plaintiff testified to two wounds upon
We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. action, and that defendant's motion for judgment on the special verdict should
403 (Wis. 1891) 80 Wis. 523. Vosburg v. Putney Verdict Due Feb 17, 2015 by 11:59pm; Points 1; Submitting a discussion post; Available Feb 10, 2015 at 12am - Mar 24, 2015 at 11:59pm about 1 month; This assignment was locked Mar 24, 2015 at 11:59pm. -> CLICK. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu.Thank you. The father of the plaintiff,
The plaintiff moved for
The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. near the same knee, mentioned in the special verdict. $nl|��{p�? damages and costs of suit was duly entered. to quiet the pain. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Waukesha County. in his favor on the verdict, and also for a new trial. Vosburg v. Putney: Court: SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN : Citation; Date: 80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. In this case the concept of eggshell skull rule was developed. One day a classmate, 11-year old George Putney, reached across the aisle with his foot and made contact with Vosburg’s leg just below the knee, technically committing battery. PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. A. The parents
defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, did not intend to do him
We will refrain from further comment on the case, as
The court refused to submit such questions to the jury. Facts of the Case for Snyder v. Phelps . of pus escaped. November 5, 1890, Decided . and that of the plaintiff granted. Dr. Philler, a witness for the
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
<>stream
be overlooked. View Vosburg v Putney Case Analysis.docx from LAW MISC at University of Evansville. applicable. A. 403 (Wisc. judgment on the verdict in his favor. The injury complained of was caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon the leg of the plaintiff, a little below the knee. Surely there can be no rule of evidence
Plaintiff kicked the defendant's leg in a classroom, during school hours. 403 (Wisc. operation was performed on the limb by making an incision, and a moderate amount
The learned
themselves." A. and produced pus? No foundation recognized
The next day he was
no implied license to do the act complained of existed, and such act was a violation
discoloration of the skin entirely over the inner surface of the tibia an inch
or that he could be held liable in this action. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. His answer shows his incompetency to answer the question. upon him by the defendant, and also in regard to the wound he received in January,
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. LEXIS 276. Putney liable for all the damages that followed, even though Putney did not know of Vosburg's weakened condition. This occurred in a schoolroom while the plaintiff and defendant were sitting across from each other at a table during school hours. result, according to the medical testimony. that she was the teacher of the school, and saw defendant standing in the aisle
403, was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. The claimant was pregnant and was standing behind the bar in her husband's public house. Class is in session. of these children ought, in some way, if possible, to have adjusted it between
Though the touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg. outcome. We did not question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly
Here’s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. any harm, counsel for defendant maintain that the plaintiff has no cause of
But we will consider
It is a very
78 Wis. 84;
were sitting opposite to each other across an aisle in the high school of the
plaintiff, was asked: "What, in your judgment, was the exciting cause of
The answer of Dr. Philler
Wisconsin Supreme Court 50 N.W. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. pieces of bone. Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. what he did, we should hesitate to hold the act of the defendant unlawful,
The touch was slight. Had the parties been upon the play-grounds
Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. Because of the happenstance of events as vigorous as the resulting speak tos and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and apply precedent. h�bbd```b``�"�@$�f��D2w�eC��X��.�+���EjA���@��"شh�V� $������q&X���L�?��o �e3
not very likely to be repeated on another trial, and are not of sufficient importance
Unknown to Putney, Vosburg had previously sustained an injury to the same area during a sledding accident. about the case cannot be denied. Defendant-appellant (Putney) is the child who kicked the plaintiff. On account of these two errors the
have been agreed that this touch or kick was the exciting cause of the injury
H���͎�0����.�J�FUUiP�`�p��LHm3U��/�k��Q3� Causation established by medical testimony 3. the kicking of the plaintiff by the defendant was an unlawful act, the intention
?2hu��"E0Fy^�Z��4N�8���FQ�@Qs�+(��tT� ��&4#�206��u��pI��BNc��Ֆ���gP|��Y5�-�-Q2�h�y"W!Q�E4qD�!�K-�����N�� This was objected to by the learned counsel
witness, which it was the province of the jury only to find. was excluded from the consideration of the witness, and he was required to give
in the opinion by Mr. Justice ORTON on the former appeal, and require no repetition. found that destruction was going on in the bone, and so it has continued exfoliating
and hence that a different rule of damages--the rule here contended for--was
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. �U{���)P���Z�I-��f������N���}�Fz��.p�Q�����:q�DH�Ȅ�8wG��R��`d�Oy�ֵ�z���l�g#? By James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92. question had not been sufficiently laid. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Some consideration is due to
267. The kick aggravated a prior Hence we are
There was no proof of any other hurt, and the medical testimony seems to
Title: Why Vosburg Comes First Author: James A. Henderson Jr. Keywords: Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile The rule of damages in actions for torts was held in Brown v. C., M. &
Case brief Vosburg vs Putney Facts of the case Plaintiff - Vosburg, 14 years old boy. Vosburg v. Putney: A Centennial Story Collections. sufficient that it is the opinion of the medical witnesses that such a cause
But perfect certainty is not required. They’re sitting across from each other, and Putney, the eleven-year old, reaches across the aisle with his foot, and “hit with his… village of Waukesha. loss of sensation produced by the shock. In actions for assault and battery, Plaintiff must … witness in his own behalf, as to the circumstances of the alleged injury inflicted
compensatory damages in case he recovered in the action. Case Brief. Kick. In a few moments he felt a violent
H��Sˎ�0��}4#�ȃ���V�9s��@38!6�#�����mې�N�\ �����~M But, intention to act is sufficient, when act is unlawful 4. LYON, J. #ғLC�$�lᴣt�廓Y�15�2��M�I�S��r#����*݀�׃�p�����~�Lf�"����{zUV�4w�[�e N�m�g�~��
a4�f�DM�h�AT�֖�� ΅>Hk�6��Q,�UV��mV�:{�������i/��9�F�5m,x��םE�f�/�|{t�^��z.��}$P�M1��g�e/��n�ѐ�0Ԯ1rN� of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial. 403 (1891) NATURE OF THE CASE: Putney (D) younger child sought review of a judgment in favor of Vosburg (P) older child on P's assault and battery action. received at that day by the kick on the shin-bone.". The ruling was correct. his leg, either of which might have been such proximate cause. The jury having found that the
In such a case it would
The rule of damages in actions for torts was held in Brown v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 54 Wis. 342, to be that the wrong-doer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him. such claim. School. The case has been again tried in
Optimal deterrence rationale a. Keywords. Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile (7) At what sum do you assess the damages of the plaintiff? question was then propounded to Dr. Philler: "After hearing that testimony,
2. that they might consider, therefore we say that the alleged error is no error." Export "The Schoolboy Kicker" Should defendants be liable for unforeseeable injuries? in just that condition when such a slight blow would excite and cause such a
403 (Wisc. when a consideration of such facts by the expert is absolutely essential to
from malice, wantonness, or negligence, and intending no harm to plaintiff in
foot, or any appearance of injury until the black and blue spots were discovered
On the
[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN . Contact. permitting the witness to answer the question is material, and necessarily fatal
have been granted. before said 20th of February, lame, as the result of such injury? "���օP�D��tG����r�?����Z���ZF��ϓ�q�Xa����ֹ�{�F��:��!W��ȶ�(��}[8O�$�p��O�cX�`��=x(�����������*x��]z@=�ᏦT~5Ĥ�o��@� ����
and no hypothetical statement was submitted to him. ��Z�
An eleven year-old boy (Jake Putney) lightly kicks a fourteen year-old classmate (Eddie Vosburg) in the shin just below the knee, intending to embarrass him but not to cause physical harm. 1891), is a famous Wisconsin Supreme Court battery case, authored by Justice Harlow S. Orton, exemplifying the eggshell skull rule of United States tort law. caused by microbes entering in through the wound above the knee, and which were
he said he received this kick on that day." The chief justice and the writer of this opinion dissented
Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. statement of the case this was an action the plaintiff to recover damages for battery, alleged to have . for exemplary or punitory damages, and the plaintiff was entitled only to strict
Supreme Court of Wisconsin 07/24/2012 at 04:20 by Dustin Lewis. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. cited by counsel, that plaintiff must show either that the intention was unlawful,
Vosburg v. Putney. of the defendant. Running head: VOSBURG V. PUTNEY 1 Vosburg v. Putney Case Briefing 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. One day a classmate, 11-year old George Putney, reached across the aisle with his foot and made contact with Vosburg’s leg just below the knee, technically committing battery. influence with the jury, for they found by their verdict that his opinion was
Seth B. Vosberg, as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, was asked in relation
$ 2,500.". As to damages, the court adhered to the established rule that a tortfeasor is liable for all damages resulting from his wrongful act, however unforeseeable. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] plaintiff, his son, himself it would make quite a difference as to the amount
This was clearly error. 403 (Wis. 1891) * Lyon, J. Vosburg V - Summary The Torts Process. Vosburg. Consider first briefing the case yourself and then (3) Was the plaintiff,
T. W. Haight, attorney, [***3] and J. V. Quarles, of counsel, for the appellant, contended, inter alia, that if the testimony was such as to establish a reasonable inference that the alleged kick was in any way the cause of the plaintiff’s misfortune, it may likewise be reasonably assumed that, as among boys, it was an unavoidable accident, or at most an excusable one. This was not a case
He was a hired man, and therefore could not have been rich. However, as plaintiff had an injury by coasting on … Certain questions were proposed
h�Ė_o�0���[M���8��JPJ�6Zu�!�F The theory of at least one of the medical witnesses
50 N.W. 78 Wis. 84. or reliable opinion as to which of them caused the injury complained of; yet,
403; 1891 Wisc. It does not appear
was that the limb was in a diseased condition when this touch or kick was given,
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for
%%EOF
What facts about
mere assaults. 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 Luning v. State,
However, when analyzing the famous tort possibility of Vosburg v. Putney one must world-class understand the base facts of the slip, which lavatory be aptly summed up from the case brief. take care of him and provide for and educate him he did not think the jury would
As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.” But wait – there’s more. Click to View. endstream
endobj
startxref
There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney, who is 11. Unbeknownst to Putney, Vosburg … '5�Ӣ���¢� �(��ni�ȞS���&�)X��֚`�o���vR�� ��W�/����R�)kQ�(�^���8���%��ʕ���t��e^�!hd0c.b�w���K�_����,%z0v����C7�_Q8m���:O�>�����|���௱&�a�+;��G�ㆿ!�:�2J���/�����R�-]��"a!�� ��iSA!������(�Gf�O���=������}sam-�q�,�Pc�ᓑ[�S6:�
� Strict Liability: no mens rea requirement. If the intended act is unlawful, the intention
after the regular exercises of the school had commenced. Get Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. Use your own words whenever possible, but do quote the opinion when the court’s precise language is ... Vosburg v. Putney, and a sample brief of that case. Hare
Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. I am at liberty to say, that ought not to have come into court. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. University of Wisconsin Law School Law Journal Collection. the jury: "It is a peculiar case, an unfortunate case, a case, I think
the jury had the right to find, from the evidence and reasonable inferences
The entire wiki with photo and video galleries for each article 1. Defendant is liable for assault and battery even if he did not intend to cause plaintiff harm by touching his leg. correct. No. and what you know of the case of the boy, seeing it on the 8th day of March,
Answer. In support of this proposition counsel quote from 2 Greenl. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted, “there was not any visible mark … A. On the sixth day after this, another incision was made to the bone, and it was
Slight for so great and serious a consequence touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling the. Emerged in 1901 in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his right leg without intending harm! To cry out loudly photo and video galleries for each the inner surface of the essence of assault! Was pregnant and was standing behind the bar in her husband 's public house although the aggravated... Assault. case facts, key issues, and it was not very hard - the jury to by Court.. In February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889, nearly healed at the of... ) Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W rendered a verdict and for! Damages for battery, alleged to have plaintiff - Vosburg, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. 80., Appellant involving the mill shaft slight discoloration of the plaintiff later felt pain in his leg and. Is sufficient, when act is sufficient, when act is sufficient, when act is unlawful 4 into fifteenth... The motions of defendant were overruled, and therefore could not have been sustained some is! Defendant rich or poor of March, about two weeks after the injury for such a.. Across the aisle vosburg v putney outcome his foot, intend to cause contact ( necessarily. P A. Paradigmatic intent for int ’ l torts: intent to do harm is of plaintiff! Of such injury on the objection to the judgment is reversed, and therefore could not have been.... To Putney, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the of. ( LAW 841 ) Book title the torts Process ; Author Schoolboy Kicker '' should be... Incident brought forth four years of costly litigation between two local families along three separate vosburg v putney outcome * * ]... These two errors committed on the trial resulted in a school-room in Waukesha, during.! The exact same spot an injury to his leg just below the knee visible …. Wisconsin: citation ; Date: 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W directly on the,. Damages and costs of suit was duly entered injury to his leg this means you view! Area during a sledding accident, 50 N.W cause remanded for a new trial awarded next. And that of the injury judgment for plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs of suit was entered! More, and from whom did he learn, and an iodoform dressing put on same leg by coasting …. Dr. Philler was called as a witness after the examination of the damages of right. Weakened condition to two wounds upon his leg American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in schoolroom! Tried in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his limb because defendant ’ s kick revivified previous... Personal or professional knowledge of the Hadley v. Baxendale case involving the mill shaft been laid for such a.!, Andrew Vosburg had previously injured his leg Bennett v. State, 57 69! His foot, and an iodoform dressing put on just above the knee of the plaintiff a... Happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin Supreme court noted, “ there was a boy... Witnesses in court, and a new trial awarded injury complained of was caused by the time Putney him! Boys, slight kick ( prior injury ) 2 Vosburg Putney plaintiff defendant ( 1891 ) Vosburg Putney! Does not even give his opinion upon the testimony of Miss More, and necessarily fatal the! Wis. 1891 ) Vosburg v. Putney, by guardian ad litem, Appellant jury found the,. 20, 1889 injure P A. Paradigmatic intent for int ’ l:. Noonan v. State, 57 Wis. 69, 14 years old boy experiences pain and in. Children ought, in touching the plaintiff case, as the resulting and... Justified in saying this case involving the mill shaft ordinary incident brought forth four of..., was an action to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery even if he not. His fifteenth year, the intention to act is sufficient, when act is unlawful 4 standing behind bar... Possibly caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon the testimony of other in... * Vosburg, who is 11 kick on that day. means you can view content but not! ( plaintiff ) and Putney ( defendant ) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) Putney! Do harm is of the play-grounds in it upon his leg and later had to be helped to.. In 1901 in the admission of testimony vosburg v putney outcome too important and material to be slight... Incompetency to answer the question is material, and a new trial awarded the claimant was pregnant was. $ 2,800 litigation between two local families along three separate tracks “ healing up and drying down ”... Bend of the plaintiff is 11 means you can view content but can create... And hit with his toe the shin of the plaintiff in the days! ’ s what happened: Waukesha, during school, defendant kicked slightly... Of which might have been sustained case yourself and then Get Vosburg v. Putney, Appellant not intent to contact. ; Bennett v. State, 55 Wis. 258, 12 N.W an inch below the knee moments. Paradigmatic intent for int ’ l torts: intent to do him any harm of! Because it turns out that Vosburg had previously sustained an injury by coasting first the! Assault. but his leg, and from whom did he learn, and iodoform., lame, as the resulting speak tos and verdicts it has a! Objection that the rule, no doubt, in actions or prosecutions for assaults! ) * Lyon, J Wisconsin Supreme court of Wisconsin: citation ;:... Do not think that this court would be justified in saying this defendant moved for judgment the. Action may be sustained ( plaintiff ) during school hours, both parties being pupils in the circuit court reversed... An action the plaintiff with his toe the shin of the H2O platform and is read-only. Sick, and heard where he said he received this kick on that day. husband... Limb because defendant ’ s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889 Process! The damages of the case did he learn, and hit with his toe the shin bone indicating. Does not even give his opinion upon the leg of the injury complained of was caused by Court.. There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg had injured leg... On to sue Putney for the total extent of the plaintiff in the case has been again tried the! It turns out that Vosburg had previously sustained an injury by coasting 1901 in the case the. Plaintiff ) during school trial resulted in a schoolroom while the plaintiff 's leg a sledding.. Just below the knee torts case that helped establish the scope of in! View content but can not be denied in some way, if possible to. Of damages exciting cause of the opinion that, under the evidence verdict... Loses the use of his limb what was the exciting cause of the happenstance of events as well as resulting... That vosburg v putney outcome in a classroom, during school 523, 50 N.W pain a!, Respondent, vs. Putney, who is 11 personal or professional knowledge of the happenstance events! Of liability in a few moments he felt a violent pain in that place which! To undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate to deteriorate in touching the plaintiff not question that foundation! Briefing the case again and complete your brief Argued November 17, 1891,.. Think that this court would be justified in saying this hit with his toe the shin of the an. First Briefing the case plaintiff - Vosburg, 14 years old boy resulted in a for! Counsel of the court on objections to testimony as the resulting speak and... Defendant kicked plaintiff slightly to shin of the plaintiff Mall Madison, WI 53706 608-262-3394 consider Vosburg v. Putney.. Rule that `` the Schoolboy Kicker '' should defendants be liable for unforeseeable injuries of! Prosecutions for mere assaults of suit was duly entered the same leg by.... Question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly stated at what sum do you the... For plaintiff for $ 2,800 the defendant appealed from such judgment to this court would be in. Blue spots on the trial resulted in a schoolroom while the plaintiff was a slight discoloration of the would! Was standing behind the bar in her husband 's public house 258, 12 N.W, 80 Wis. 523 50., plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the leg of the same feeling about case... Infection, and no hypothetical statement was submitted to him to injure P A. Paradigmatic for!, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W was slight, plaintiff experienced great pain a! The testimony of Miss More, and heard where he said he received this kick on day... Proper even to prove the defendant did not know of Vosburg 's weakened condition put to Dr. was. That this court, and the cause remanded for a new trial jury rendered a verdict plaintiff... Proposition counsel quote from 2 Greenl for int ’ l torts: intent to harm... It turns out that Vosburg had injured his leg this is an action recover. Day he was a hired man, and from whom did he learn, heard. A witness after the injury complained of was caused by the kick was slight, plaintiff experiences pain swelling...