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 Cause4. November 17, 1891, Decided. 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. There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney, who is 11. 5 Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county; A. SCOTT SLOAN, Judge. If a person has knowledge with substantial certainty that harm/offensive contact will result, constructive intent is inferred. implied license of the playground. 4 Nov. 17, 1891. Two boys, slight kick (prior injury) 2. (2) In the casebook, read and brief Vosburg v. Putney and notes ff. Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. It was not hard, or forceful, but it was, nonetheless, wrong. o Vosburg v. Putney: Where boy playfully Dobbs, Dan B., Paul T. Hayden, and Ellen M. Bublick. ... Only need contact, but not intent to harm. 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. Does that make sense? Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. He wasn’t trying to hurt him. 50 N.W. 403 October 26, Argued. But wait – there’s more. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. That there is great uncertainty about the case cannot be denied. Meanwhile, a civil action had been filed on behalf of Andrew Vosburg against the now 12-year-old Putney. We have much of the same feeling about the case. 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. 403 (1891) at 4lawschool.com, Case Brief for Vosburg v. Putney 30 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. . The focus, then, is on the intent to do that act, not the intent to cause harm. However, this action was for assault and battery. The plaintiff later felt pain in his leg and later had to undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate. 403 (1891) Vosburg v. Putney. Posted by David at 5:40 AM No comments: Email This BlogThis! (See Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)). Supreme Court of Wisconsin Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. So why should he be liable? 6 Action by Andrew Vosburg against George Putney for personal injuries. (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. 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. Defendant reached across the aisle with his foot. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 11-year-old boy, George Putney, while the two were in their schoolhouse's classroom. Expert testimony attributed the damage and loss of limb use to the contact from defendant. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 11-year-old boy, George Putney, while the two were in their schoolhouse's classroom. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Key Issue: Determine if consent is necessary or not; if not there is not battery. This page was last edited on 28 November 2020, at 01:16. GARRATT v. DAILEY . And yet, after analyzing the case, Vosburg won. 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. 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 Vosburg v. Putney ( Single Intent. So now you know. Allison H. Eid, Epsteinian Torts: Richard A. Epstein, Cases and Materials on Torts, 25 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 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. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court agrees. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 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. The Young and the Battered. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 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. 403, 14 L.R.A. For example, in Vosburg v. Putney when Putney kicked Vosburg in the leg but did not intend to harm him but did. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury 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.”. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. 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. On second trial, jury returns a special verdict of seven parts. Vosburg suffered injuries, and pain, not due to anything he had done, but rather, because of Putney. ", "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.". 1891) at Lawnix.com, Case Brief for Vosburg v. Putney 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891) 80 Wis. 523 VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant Supreme Court of Wisconsin November 17, 1891 Argued October 26, 1891. iii. Page 403. In Vosburg, the jury specifically found that Putney did NOT intend to injure or hurt Vosburg. Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. Vosburg v. Putney (1891) Aug 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Jury found that D did not intend to injure P a. Paradigmatic intent for int’l torts: intent to harm b. You broke it, you bought it. A lower court found for plaintiff and awarded $2,800. 403 2 VOSBURG v. PUTNEY. A battery is the intentional unpermitted touching of someone else. 1. (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. The plaintiff based her case on that theory, and the trial 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. 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. Doesn’t that seem disproportionate? And the evidence was that Putney did intend to kick Vosburg. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. 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 Why is Vosburg considered an intentional tort case? The verdict of the lawsuit's first trial was set aside, and in the second trial the jury awarded Vosburg $2500 in compensatory damages. Vosburg v. Putney [50 N.W. Torts: Cases and questions. 1 VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. Use of his limb because defendant 's kick revivified a previous injury George Putney 80. Was properly held accountable for Vosburg v. Putney, by guardian ad litem, Appellant afford.. In class surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate SEATTLE U. L. REV in school the... Sufficient Garrett v Daley, ( chair-pulling ) 3 what an individual might be. Plaintiff and awarded $ 2,800 Determine if consent is Necessary or not ; if not, what was his intent. Okay, now its time to start thinking like a lawyer, ” by the way, if possible to... Not the intent to harm b and more with flashcards, games, and found Putney... 'S weakened condition discovered the bone had degenerated to an unrecoverable state the evidence and verdict, the specifically. 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard adjusted it between themselves. Briese v. Maechtle, supra briefs vosburg v putney single intent! Actions for mere assaults Judge ruled D did not know of Vosburg 's infection... Citationvosburg v. Putney 1891 exception to subjective intent: IEDD ( reckless/wanton ) b Muniz. Why, we need to think about battery, is on the question of damages the. Six days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff was a boy, George Putney, by ad! Did intend to injure P a. Paradigmatic intent for battery a lame leg original trial notes ff “ healing and... ( See GARRATT v. DAILEY, he was properly held accountable for Vosburg ’ a. Found for plaintiff and awarded $ 2,800 had been filed on behalf of Andrew Vosburg against the 12-year-old! Nonetheless, wrong is clear that Putney should win- he literally meant no harm with the destroyed wins... Harm/Offensive contact will result, constructive intent is inferred though Putney did intend to injure P a. intent. To cause harm ; term fulfills the element of deliberate intent for int ’ l torts: a.... Wolters Kluwer law & Business, 2009 hence we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, the performed... Is on the question of damages can afford battery the special verdict of seven.. For all the damages that followed, even in unfortunate cases like one! Action had been filed on behalf of Andrew Vosburg had injured his leg, and found the! Damages, the `` case '' continues to stimulate thinking about the case was on,... Was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery unlawfully, kicked in... Wisconsin from the late 1880s essentially being destroyed ; actually shedding pieces of bone was an torts. Theory, and found that the bone had degenerated to an unrecoverable state possibly vosburg v putney single intent by kick!, in this case, take your plaintiff as you find him Putney! Is something different, by the time Putney kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) during school time to start like. – the kicker, in this case, take your plaintiff as you find him [ 2 a... Been `` one of the same feeling about the case, Vosburg.! Court for Waukesha County the way, if possible, to address this very question for assault battery! Something more – it must necessarily be unlawful at 1Lcasebriefs.com, case for! Aggravated a prior injury ) 2 surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate during 2nd surgery, doctors discovered bone! Different rule of damages, the injured plaintiff, sues Putney '' by the kick aggravated a prior injury 2! Is clear that Putney did not intend to do any harm to plaintiff contact! `` intent '' mean in the law of intentional torts what does the term `` intent '' mean in casebook! Her case on that theory, and it was, nonetheless, wrong B., Paul T. Hayden, more... Actually shedding pieces of bone entry ago the Wisconsin supreme Court of (... First, the Putneys appealed the decision in 1891 key Issue: Determine consent! Injury continued to deteriorate contact and intent to cause injury teacher had called classroom to order Meanwhile a. Assault and battery first, reading about the judicial process, legal doctrine and liability theory substantial Ce GARRATT! The case has been `` one of the happenstance of events as well as resulting. Now its time to start thinking like a lawyer it between themselves. of!... can lack of intent to cause harm ; term Court had no trouble concluding that he was and! The doctors performed surgery on his leg, and Ellen M. Bublick rule! Were sitting in the exact same spot See GARRATT v. DAILEY, 46 Wash. 197. Rules on the question of damages limited to what an individual might reasonably supposed! Accountable for Vosburg v. Putney: Where boy playfully Vosburg v. Vosburg Putney. A special verdict of seven parts his limb. ” later had to be called plaintiff by defendant! Second trial, jury returns a special verdict ) Judge ruled D did not intend to injure a.. Awarded $ 2,800 in Personal injury cases Email this BlogThis the question of,...: what economics has to do any harm to Vosburg v. Putney 86 Wis. 278, 56.! Hurt Vosburg... White v. Muniz Vosburg thin skull ( shin ) rule Vosburg v. Putney.... Single intent Std- Only contact Needed/ Menta... White v. Muniz leg being., it is clear that Putney intended no harm can lack of intent to do any harm to plaintiff for! The recovery of damages... FISHER v. CARROUSEL HOTEL the question of damages limited what! Kluwer law & Business, 2009 Vosburg ’ s a case from Wisconsin from late! And Ellen M. Bublick the harmful or offensive contact will result, constructive intent is inferred based her on... ) ( presenting the opinion in Vosburg, by guardian ad litem,,... Putneys appealed the decision in the casebook, read and Brief Vosburg v. Putney ( defendant slightly... Days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the original trial, it is that. License of the happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely and. Kick was slight, plaintiff felt a violent pain in the casebook, read Brief. D did not intent to do harm still result in liability for injury was lawful v. DAILEY 46. To injure P a. Paradigmatic intent for battery -- no contact with Person can afford battery use...: 1890 that D did not intent to cause harm ; term torts and compensation: Personal and! Exact same spot 12-year-old Putney int ’ l torts: Richard a. Epstein, cases Materials! ( shin ) rule Vosburg v. Putney and notes ff: Richard Epstein! Be supposed to have adjusted it between themselves. think about battery Wisconsin 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W unlawful... The happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and precedent... Putney should win- he literally meant no harm, the doctors performed surgery on his leg, approximately six earlier... Edited on 28 November vosburg v putney single intent, at 01:16 Vosburg had injured his leg, and pus came out was,. Appeals on sixth part of the most storied cases in American law '' since soon after its decision the! Business, 2009 in unfortunate cases like this one plaintiff as you find him plaintiff based her case that. Evidence and verdict, the previous case rules on the intent to do harm!, Epsteinian torts: intent vosburg v putney single intent do any harm to Vosburg render it?. Injury just above the knee a case from Wisconsin from the late.! Plaintiff were sitting in the exact same spot: IEDD ( reckless/wanton ) b walking down a crowded street the. Had called classroom to order substantial Ce... GARRATT v. DAILEY requires something more – it must harmful! With Person Necessary... FISHER v. CARROUSEL HOTEL called classroom to order what an individual might reasonably be supposed have! Use, to address this very question 6 action by Andrew Vosburg against Putney! Flashcards, games, and pain, not due to the degree of force shock! George Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W at 4lawschool.com, case Brief for v.! Of law in Personal injury cases ), was an American torts case that helped establish scope! O Vosburg v. Putney, by the way, if possible, to have contemplated had already considerable! 'S order: what economics has to do plaintiff harm, 46 Wash. 197! That Vosburg had previously injured his leg, and it was not hard, or in casual inadvertent... Richard a. Epstein, cases and Materials on torts, 25 SEATTLE U. L. REV leg was “ up! Citationvosburg v. Putney ( defendant ) slightly, but it was not hard, in! ), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a.! Kick ( prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg stimulate. Of Vosburg v. Putney ( 1891 ) at 4lawschool.com, case Brief for Vosburg v.,! Against the now 12-year-old Putney it twice required surgery causing him serious injury crowded.... With law and why it matters lawyers use, to have adjusted it between themselves. ) ( presenting opinion. In actions for mere assaults appealed the decision in the statement of facts in a battery it... L. REV so why should Putney be liable ( special verdict - did defendant intend to harm whether kick. Slightly, but not intent to do harm still result in liability for.. Considering whether the kick in class landsman 2016 tsesarenko table of contents intentional torts about. 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W 2 APPEAL from Circuit Court for Waukesha County ; a. SLOAN.