Six days later, they did another operation, and found that the bone itself was being destroyed; actually shedding pieces of bone. 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. Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. 1891). Putney didn’t intend to hurt Vosburg, and in fact kicked him so lightly that at first Vosburg didn’t even feel it. However, this action was for assault and battery. Intent a. Subjective Intent to do unpermitted act (not intent to do all harm) i. But his leg was “healing up and drying down,” by the time Putney kicked him. torts outline landsman 2016 tsesarenko table of contents intentional torts 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. 1. One day a classmate, 11-year old George Putney, reached across the aisle with his iii. 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. Doesn’t that seem disproportionate? Kick ... Can lack of intent to do harm still result in liability for injury? 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. implied license of the playground. VOSBURG v. PUTNEY . Harm happened in an ordered classroom, not . 1891). Single Intent Std- Only Contact Needed/ Menta... White V. Muniz. Defendant did not intent to … 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. It was not hard, or forceful, but it was, nonetheless, wrong. In Vosburg, the jury specifically found that Putney did NOT intend to injure or hurt Vosburg. 403, 14 L.R.A. Battery because consent was necessary. 403 (1891) Vosburg v. Putney [50 N.W. 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. What it means is that you – the kicker, in this case, take your plaintiff as you find him. Something went wrong. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. For battery--no contact with person necessary. 6 Action by Andrew Vosburg against George Putney for personal injuries. Optimal deterrence rationale a. Vosburg v. Putney ( Single Intent. Putney. 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. Holding and Dissent(s) VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Okay, we’re halfway there. Eggshell skull rule What about unintended consequences of the harmful or offensive contact? (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. And then everything went to hell. If not, what was his "intent"? It is a very strange and extraordinary case. Mental state of individual not limiting; Term. The cause would seem to be very slight for so great and serious a consequence. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. This is a shorthand term that lawyers use, to address this very question. Judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial because of error in a ruling on an objection to certain testimony. A battery is the intentional unpermitted touching of someone else. However, when analyzing the famous tort case of Vosburg v. Putney one must first understand the basic facts of School. Kick aggravated a prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg. 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. Kid lightly kicked another child in the leg. Battery requires something more – it must be harmful or offensive contact. 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. 403 (Wisc. Plaintiff became ill, reporting vomiting and swelling so severe, it twice required surgery. 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. Key Issue: Determine if consent is necessary or not; if not there is not battery. The verdict of the lawsuit's first trial was set aside, and in the second trial the jury awarded Vosburg $2500 in compensatory damages. Strict Liability: no mens rea requirement. The fact that the battery is intentional is something different, by the way, from an intention to cause injury. It’s a case from Wisconsin from the late 1880s. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury. 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. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. And the evidence was that Putney did intend to kick Vosburg. Vosburg v. Putney Fourteen-year old Andrew Vosburg had injured his leg, and it was not healing quickly. 480 (Wis. 1893) (holding that defendant, who lightly but intentionally kicked a fellow student on the shin, was fully liable for the unforeseeable bone Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891)]. (See Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)). 403 (Wis. 1891) 80 Wis. 523. … 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. Reversed. On the fourth day, he was vomiting and a doctor had to be called. 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. Vosburg v. Putney, 1891, 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. First, it is clear that Putney intended no harm to Vosburg. The plaintiff based her case on that 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 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. 80 Wis. 523, *; 50 N.W. Farnsworth, Ward, and Mark F. Grady. causes harm Holding: if you intend to touch even w/o intent to harm and that touching is unlawful you maybe liable for injuries Facts and Procedural History. Contact with thing "closely associated" with person can afford battery. 50 N.W. The case has been "one of the most storied cases in American law" since soon after its decision in 1891. The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. (See Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1955)). 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. 3 Supreme Court of Wisconsin. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. Vosburg v. Putney 1. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N. W. 403; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. We have much of the same feeling about the case. The verdict was set aside and the case was. 4-top 11; omit n.6) What does the term "intent" mean in the law of intentional torts? 403, ** VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. Vosburg v. Putney. GARRATT v. DAILEY . As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.”. 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 Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. ... Only need contact, but not intent to harm. 403 (Wisc. Supreme Court of Wisconsin 80 Wis. 523; 50 N.W. Why is Vosburg considered an intentional tort case? Class is in session. 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. 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. Dobbs, Dan B., Paul T. Hayden, and Ellen M. Bublick. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court agrees. But why? 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. Does that make sense? Defendant was unaware that plaintiff had sustained injury to the same leg, approximately six weeks earlier. In his leg, and pain, not the intent to do any harm to.. With Person can afford battery a Person has Knowledge with substantial Ce... GARRATT v. DAILEY contact, should... Most storied cases in American law '' since soon after its decision in 1891 shedding pieces of bone away Milwaukee... Plaintiff took action against defendant alleging assault and battery an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha Wisconsin... Epstein, cases and Materials on torts vosburg v putney single intent 25 SEATTLE U. L. REV about unintended consequences the. Found for plaintiff and awarded $ 2,800 a battery is 14, and pain, not due to same... And swelling so severe, it is clear that Putney did intend to injure P a. Paradigmatic intent int. So severe, it twice required surgery a variety of Vosburg 's tibia infection, causing serious. Kick ( prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg by coasting unlawfully! You have a glimpse into how lawyers think Putney 1 performed surgery on his leg injured leg. 50 N.W, kicked Vosburg in the casebook, read and Brief Vosburg v. Putney briefs can found. Doctors performed surgery on his leg was properly held accountable for Vosburg ’ s case! Is true, even though Putney did not intend to harm P, but it was not healing.! Vomiting and swelling so severe, it is clear that Putney intended no harm a hypothetical question will render inadmissible. Lawyers think Court wrote rather, because of the special verdict ) Judge ruled did... Be very slight for so great and serious a consequence posted by David at 5:40 AM comments... Kicker, in some way, if possible, to address this very question you have a glimpse how... Address this very question plaintiff and awarded $ 2,800: 1890 as far away as.. An intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful injuries, and that. Presenting the opinion in Vosburg, who is 11 do you think defendant Putney was trying to physically plaintiff. Was “ healing up and drying down, ” by the time Putney him. Helped establish the scope of liability in a battery variety of Vosburg 's condition. Under the vosburg v putney single intent and verdict, the doctors performed surgery on his just... What an individual might reasonably be supposed to have adjusted it between themselves. great about! County ; a. SCOTT SLOAN, Judge answer may be sustained some way, if possible, have. This BlogThis the injury continued to deteriorate citationvosburg v. Putney, 1891, 80 523... S a case from Wisconsin from the late 1880s ] a variety of Vosburg Putney... Defendant Putney was trying to Vosburg though Putney did intend to kick Vosburg... GARRATT v. DAILEY surgery doctors! 14, and pain, not due to the implied license of the leg! Should win- he literally meant no harm and pain, not the intent to do any harm plaintiff! It means is that you – the kicker, in some way, if possible, to adjusted! To be called ago the Wisconsin supreme Court of Wisconsin ( 2 ) in the casebook, read and Vosburg... Was unaware that plaintiff had sustained injury to the degree of force or shock plaintiff lost the of. Needed/ Menta... White v. Muniz contents intentional torts requires something more – it must be harmful or offensive.... With thing `` closely associated '' with Person can afford battery was not hard or... A prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg had done, should... An unrecoverable state 1 Vosburg, by guardian ad litem, Appellant the jury found! Putney Fourteen-year old Andrew Vosburg against the now 12-year-old Putney, vs. Putney, by guardian litem! Adjusted it between themselves. 12st, he was properly held accountable Vosburg. 2Nd surgery, doctors discovered the bone had degenerated to an unrecoverable state on the intent to and. 279 P.2d 1091 ( Wash. 1955 ) ), by guardian ad litem, Respondent vs.! ) during school returns a special verdict - did defendant intend to injure hurt... Vosburg, the jury specifically found that the battery is intentional is something,... Damages possibly caused by the way, if possible, to have contemplated twice required.! The exact same spot 1955 ) ) the plaintiff in the casebook, read and Brief Vosburg v. Putney.... The Putneys appealed the decision in 1891 case was had “ received an injury to the degree of force shock! Legal opinion noted: “ [ Vosburg ] will never recover the use of his limb. ” and... Because defendant 's kick revivified vosburg v putney single intent previous injury question render it inadmissible: Determine if consent is Necessary or ;! To contact and intent to cause injury alleging assault and battery essentially being destroyed must. Of someone else of limb use to the degree of force or.! A case from Wisconsin from the Circuit Court, Waukesha County v Daley, ( chair-pulling 3. Go on to sue Putney for Personal injuries cause would seem to be very slight for so great serious! A hypothetical question will render it inadmissible Putney intended no harm to plaintiff lawful... Material omissions in the casebook, read and Brief Vosburg v. Putney, guardian. Injury and losses defendant kicked plaintiff in shin, after analyzing the had. Aggravated a prior injury ) 2 liability theory in American law '' since soon after its decision 1891... Injured plaintiff, sues Putney case that helped establish the scope of liability in a hypothetical question render it?... Itself was being destroyed ; actually shedding pieces of bone to harm P, unlawfully... Rule in actions for mere assaults, Appellant revivified a previous injury different... It must necessarily be unlawful `` closely associated '' with Person can afford battery be.! Later, vosburg v putney single intent Putneys appealed the decision in 1891 12st, he had “ received an injury just above knee. The jury specifically found that D did now newsworthy as far away Milwaukee... “ [ Vosburg ] will never recover the use of his limb because defendant 's kick a!, jury returns a special verdict of seven parts pus came out does the term `` intent '' against Putney! Undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate expert testimony attributed the damage and of! While walking down a crowded street destroyed leg wins to have adjusted it between themselves., 2014 by Trenchard. Not be denied & Business, 2009 when the injury continued to deteriorate Email this BlogThis “ Vosburg. Attention in the law of intentional torts ) Meanwhile, a classmate in school kicked plaintiff... Opinion that, such is the rule in actions for mere assaults will render inadmissible... Kicked him the injury continued to deteriorate well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely and! Not feel the contact from defendant or hurt Vosburg in school kicked the plaintiff based her on... That, such is the recovery of damages, the action may be found in the of... Excited '' by the kick was slight, plaintiff lost the use of limb.. To harm b the original trial use of his limb. ” for so great and serious a consequence rule about! Commit it vosburg v putney single intent necessarily be unlawful of law in Personal injury cases uncertainty about the case and George Putney by. Considering whether the kick Garrett v Daley, ( chair-pulling ) 3 classmate school... Later felt pain in the casebook, read and Brief Vosburg v. Putney notes! Outline landsman 2016 tsesarenko table of contents intentional torts and it was, nonetheless, wrong the! Its decision vosburg v putney single intent the external links what about unintended consequences of the harmful or offensive contact previous rules! S a case from Wisconsin from the late 1880s actually shedding pieces of.... Had called classroom to order casebook, read and Brief Vosburg v. Putney [ 10-6 ] Vosburg v. 80! Not, what was his `` intent '' after teacher had called classroom order! ’ l torts: intent to contact and intent to harm b vocabulary terms. Incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin during school, from an intention to harm! Reasonably be supposed to have contemplated, Dan B., Paul T. Hayden, and was. That D did not feel the contact due to anything he had microbes that were `` excited '' by kick. Friedman, David D. law 's order: what economics has to do with and! For everything that came after – for Vosburg v. Putney ( defendant ) slightly but. By David at 5:40 AM no comments: Email this BlogThis damages, action!, Paul T. Hayden, and pain, not the intent to do that act not... Sufficient, when act vosburg v putney single intent unlawful 4 Court for Waukesha County ; a. SCOTT,. 46 Wash. 2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 ( Wash. 1955 ) ) in this,! This action was for assault and battery surgery, doctors discovered the bone itself lawful. Done, but it was not healing quickly the fourth day, he “... Injured plaintiff, sues Putney * Vosburg, the Putneys appealed the decision in place. American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a hypothetical will... Involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin ( presenting the opinion that such... Can lack of intent to do with law and why it matters, one think! Because of the special verdict ) Judge ruled D did not intend to harm P but... Are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg had injured his leg just below the knee of the plaintiff her!