Though the touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg. Jury found that D did not intend to injure P … Please enable Cookies and reload the page. 3. The facts are stated in the opinion. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Vosburg v. Putney. But it appears [***8] 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. The testimony of Dr. Bacon, a witness for plaintiff (who was plaintiff’s attending physician), elicited on cross-examination, tends to some extent to establish such claim. 403, 80 Wis. 523: Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J. Consider first briefing the case yourself and then November 5, 1890. (4) Had the tibia in the plaintiff’s right leg become inflamed or diseased to some extent before he received the blow or kick from the defendant? 403 (Wis. 1891) ... testimony was incorrectly permitted because he did non accept the necessary facts to course of report an intelligent opinion. The chief justice and the writer of this opinion dissented from the judgment in that case, chiefly because we were of the opinion that the complaint stated a cause of action ex contractu, and not ex delicto, and hence that a different rule of damages–the rule here contended for–was applicable. 391; Peterson v. Haffner, 59 Ind. LEXIS 276. Even a century later, the "case" continues to stimulate thinking about the judicial process, legal doctrine … A consideration by the witness of the wound received by the plaintiff in January being thus prevented, the witness had but one fact upon which to base his opinion, to wit, the fact that defendant kicked plaintiff on the shin-bone. The kick was not very hard – the jury found that “defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, did not intend to do him any harm.” Facts: Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. The action was brought to recover damages for an assault and battery, alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff on February 20, 1889. [*527] [**403] LYON, J. Defendant-appellant (Putney) is the child who kicked the plaintiff. Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. But this is an action to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. One day, while both were sitting across the aisle from each other at school, Putney reached his leg over and lightly kicked Vosburg in the shin. Plaintiff-appellee (Vosburg) is a child who was kicked and subsequently rendered lame by the defendant. Based, as it necessarily was, on that fact alone, the opinion of Dr. Philler that the kick caused the injury was inevitable, when, had the proper hypothesis been submitted to him, his opinion might have been different. CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. 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. The court refused to submit such questions to the jury. (3) Evidence: Hypothetical questions. 1083. Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. & N. 478; Christopherson v. Bare, 11 Q. FEATURE VOSBURG v. PUTNEY A CENTENNIAL STORY ZIGURDS L. ZILE On February 20, 1889, an incident between two boys occurred in a classroom in Waukesha, Wisconsin. 3. Receivers, 4 Hughes, 172; Scheffer v. Railroad Co. 105 U.S. 249; Moak’s Underhill, Torts, 16; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 Wis. 590; Sharp v. Powell, L. R. 7 C. P. 258. The case has been again tried in the circuit court, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. > VOSBURG v. PUTNEY, 80 Wis. 523 (1891) 80 Wis. 523, *; 50 N.W. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile Two boys, slight kick (prior injury) 2. 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. At the date of the alleged assault the plaintiff was a little more than fourteen years of age, and the defendant a little less than twelve years of age. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] Argued October 20, 1890. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 409; Harvey v. Dunlap, Hill & Denio Supp. By the Court.–The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial. If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful. The economic basis for the distinction is the difference in information costs. The transaction occurred in a school-room in Waukesha, during school hours, both parties being pupils in the school. Course. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 1. They had lunch, went to recess, then returned for the rest of their lessons and that is where the drama took place. tit. Facts and Procedural History. Vosburg (plaintiff) and Putney (defendant) were both students in the same school in 1889. The following question was then propounded to Dr. Philler: “After hearing that testimony, and what you know of the case of the boy, seeing it on the 8th day of March, what, in your opinion, was the exciting cause that produced the inflammation that you saw in that boy’s leg on that day?” An objection to this question was overruled, and the witness answered: “The exciting cause was the injury received at that day by the kick on the shin-bone.”. Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] 403 (Wisc. As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.” But wait – there’s more. 82-85; 2 Addison, Torts, sec. The facts of the case, as they appeared on both trials, are sufficiently stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice ORTON on the former appeal, and require no repetition. 99; 1890 Wisc. 405; Alderson v. Waistell, 1 Car. Please share your verdict on the Vosburg v. Putney deliberation. Rep. 75; McGrew v. Stone, 53 Pa. St. 441-2; Putnam v. B. A. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted, “there was not any visible mark … Keywords. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 280. The plaintiff testified to two wounds upon his leg, either of which might have been such proximate cause. dirasaniraurus. 408; Cooley, Torts, 303, 163; Thayer v. Jarvis, 44 Wis. 390. Yes. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. Vosburg v. Putney Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 1891 50 N.W. Acc. Dam. Citation: 50 N.W. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. November 17, 1891, Decided. November 5, 1890, Decided . The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Putney. At the date of the alleged assault the plaintiff was a little more than 14 years of … Yes. 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. Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant’s kick revivified a previous injury. [*529] It will be observed that the above question to Dr. Philler calls for [***10] his opinion as a medical expert, based in part upon the testimony of the plaintiff, as to what was the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff’s leg. Ev. 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. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Talk:Vosburg v. Putney. Keywords. The transaction occu… Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. Defendant did not intent to … One of the boys was barely into his fifteenth year, the other two days short of twelve. CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney… relevant facts: the We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. 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 Sign in Register; Hide. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County The action was brought to recover damages for an assault and battery, alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff on February 20, 1889. Kick aggravated a prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury Questions in Vosburg v. Party Name: VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant 403 (Wisc. Follow @genius on Twitter for updates 195; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. HN2 The rule of damages in actions for [***12] 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. The party who commits a trespass or other wrongful act is liable for all the direct injury resulting from such act, although such resulting injury could not have been contemplated as the probable result. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. (6) Did the defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, intend to do him any harm? [***9] Dr. Bacon first saw the injured leg on February 25th, and Dr. Philler, also one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, first saw it March 8th. University. Without taking both of these wounds into consideration, the expert could give no intelligent or reliable opinion as to which of them caused the injury complained of; yet, in the hypothetical question propounded to him, one of these probable causes was excluded from the consideration of the witness, and he was required to give his opinion upon an imperfect and insufficient hypothesis,–one which excluded from his consideration a material fact essential to an intelligent opinion. October 20, 1890, Argued . Acc. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. The defendant claimed that such wound was the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff’s leg, in that it produced a diseased condition of the bone, which disease was in active progress when he received the kick, and that such kick did nothing more than to change the location, and perhaps somewhat hasten the progress, of the disease. On a regular school day, George Putney and Andrew Vosburg attended class as they normally would. Vosburg v. Putney. QUESTION 2 – EGGSHELL SKULLS Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. The question of contributory negligence, therefore, on the part of the plaintiff or of his parents, should have been submitted as requested. Harvey v. Dunlap, Hill & Denio Supp. Citation: 50 N.W. Setting aside the question of contributory negligence, however, “in order to warrant a finding that negligence, or an act not amounting to a wanton wrong, is the proximate cause of an injury, it must appear that the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the wrongful act, and that it ought to have been foreseen in the light of attending circumstances.” Atkinson v. Goodrich Transp. I heard read the testimony of Miss More, and heard where he said he received this kick on that day.” (Miss More had already testified that she was the teacher of the school, and saw defendant standing in the aisle by his seat, and kicking across the aisle, hitting the plaintiff.) Because of the happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent. VOSBURG, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, Appellant. 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 [**404] the defendant unlawful, or that he could be held liable in this action. Here’s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. However, Plaintiff experienced great pain, a severe infection, and surgery at the kicked place. We did not question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly stated. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. VOSBURG, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, Appellant. 592; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id. “[The plaintiff, 14 years old at the time in question, brought an action for battery against the defendant, 12 years old. 590; Ingram v. Rankin, 47 id. 346; Oliver v. McClellan, 21 Ala. 675; Barham v. Turbeville, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 437; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. A former trial of the cause resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $ 2,800. & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469; 2 Thomp. 1891) VOSBURG V. V. Prima facie torts: a. P establishes case with required elements b. DISPOSITION: Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 118; Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis. 299; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id. OPINION: LYON, J. defendant (Δ) was George Putney not Hiram Putney; plaintiff (Π) was Andrew Vosburg not Jonathan Vosburg Wermsker (talk • contribs) 06:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Father was Seth Vosburg not Andrew Vosburg Wermsker 06:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC) legally material facts are munged in with irrelevant facts (parents, jobs, wealth); 195, cited in 51 N. Y. 2. D appealed but appellate court upheld decision. The answer is a general denial. Party Name: VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant No. In support of this proposition counsel quote from 2 Greenl. By James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92. The kick was not very hard - the jury foun 218; Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 437. Hence, as applied to this case, if the kicking of the plaintiff by the defendant was an unlawful act, the intention of defendant to kick him was also unlawful. Surely 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. 1. 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. Follow @genius 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. 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. Rep. 354. Facts of the case: The injury complained of was caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon the leg of the plaintiff, a little below the knee. Ariel Rodriguez Professor Burns Tort Law 23 January 2019 Vosburg V. Putney Wisc. Battery i. Vosburg v. Putney 1. The answer is a general denial. Vosburg v. Putney came three times before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the court's opinions, the second one [FN1] in particular, were soon selected for coursebooks on Damages and Torts and became well known to generations of students, teachers and scholars of law. allison guenette id 355902567 legal analysis political science 402 dr. waggoner, august 21, 2018 vosburg putney, 80 wis. 523; 50 403 (1891). The Young and the Battered. PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. 403 Wisc. (5) What was the exciting cause of the injury to the plaintiff’s leg? Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury 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. Neg. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. We will study Vosburg v. Putney (1890) which is a notorious Wisconsin Supreme Court case for tort liability in law. On the last trial the jury found a special [***2] verdict, as follows: “(1) Had the plaintiff during the month of January, 1889, received an injury just above the knee, which became inflamed, and produced pus? The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. citation vosburg putney plaintiff defendant (1891) ii. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. Answer. & S. A. R. Co. 55 N. Y. The action was brought to recover damages for an assault and battery, alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff on February 20, 1889. The answer is a general denial. Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. Defendant: PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant . 362; Ehrgott v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. No. Vosburg v. Putney. Dr. Philler was called as a witness after the examination of the plaintiff and Dr. Bacon. Vosburg did not feel this kick. The answer is a general denial. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Putney. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 1 However, several moments later, Vosburg … The chief justice and the writer of this opinion dissented from the judgment in that case, chiefly because we were of the opinion that the complaint stated a cause of action ex contractu, and not ex delicto, and hence that a different rule of damages–the rule here contended for–was applicable. PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. The kick was slight. The kick aggravated a prior statement of the case this was an action the plaintiff to recover damages for battery, alleged to have. 78 Wis. 84. 2. The facts of the case, as they appeared on both trials, are sufficiently stated in the opinion by Mr. Justice ORTON on the former appeal, and require no repetition. Wisconsin Supreme Court 50 N.W. A. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. 403; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. v. Bragdon, 23 N. H. 507; Zouch v. [***6] Parsons, 3 Burr. BATTERY Vosburg v. Putney (1) Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for assault and battery if there was no intent to harm? The wrong-doer in such case is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him. The objection to the question put to Dr. Philler should have been sustained. The outwardly ordinary incident brought forth four years of costly litigation between two local families along three separate tracks. 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. B. //]]>, Sorry, we have to make sure you're a human before we can show you this page. At the date of the alleged assault the plaintiff was a little more than 14 years of age, and the defendant a little less than 12 years of age. 473; Hoffman v. Eppers, 41 Wis. 251; Krall v. Lull, 49 id. (2) Had such injury on the 20th day of February, 1889, nearly healed at the point of the injury? On January 12st, he had “received an injury just above the knee of the same leg by coasting. As stated earlier, it may take a few attempts to separate the irrelevant from the ... Vosburg v. Putney, and a sample brief of that case. ACCIDENT; Barry v. U. S. Mut. 403 (Wis. 1891) Facts . On his direct examination he testified as follows: “I heard the testimony of Andrew Vosburg in regard to how he received the kick, February 20th, from his playmate. Ev. The action was brought to recover damages for an assault and battery, alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff on February 20, 1889. Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN . A. 403 (Wis. 1891), Wisconsin Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney, who is 11. For Your Data Vosburg V. Putney Illustration Brief By . -> CLICK. 292. 714; McNamara v. Clintonville, 62 Wis. 207; Oliver v. La Valle, 36 id. The plaintiff later felt pain in his leg and later had to undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate. 403 (Wisc. SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. But his leg was “healing up and drying down,” by the time Putney kicked him. 403 (Wisc. At the date of the alleged assault the plaintiff was a little more than fourteen years of age, and the defendant a little less than twelve years of age. In 1891, this was the scene for a common schoolboy scruff that turned contentious, and then turned historical. 1802; Jennings v. Rundall, 8 Term R. 335; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. Ibid The motions of defendant were overruled, and that of the plaintiff granted. (3) Was the plaintiff, before said 20th of February, lame, as the result of such injury? 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 [*528] school, and necessarily unlawful. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. Ass’n v. Barry, 131 U.S. 100; Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush. 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, by guardian ad litem, Respondent. Ibid; Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] Queen's Bench Division, 2 QB 405 (Queen's Bench Division). Class is in session. Though the touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg. No. Northern Kentucky University. We did not question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly stated. LEXIS 276 Defendant kicked plaintiff in shin, after teacher had called classroom to order. It is error to permit an expert witness to answer a hypothetical question which calls for his opinion in a matter vital to the case, but excludes from his consideration facts already proved by the witness upon whose testimony such hypothetical question is based, when a consideration of such facts is essential to the formation of an intelligent opinion concerning the matter. P sued D for damages. 403 (Wisc. (1) Assault and battery: Intent to do harm. The motive and purpose being innocent and harmless, the law implies a license for the defendant’s act. 13 !function(t,e,r){var n,s=t.getElementsByTagName(e)[0],i=/^http:/.test(t.location)? 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. July 22, 2020 Edit. 1891). October 26, 1891, Argued Get Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. (2) Measure of damages. Vosburg V - Summary The Torts Process. 292; Morris v. Platt, 32 Conn. 75-86. There being no evil intent or its equivalent shown, there should be no [***5] recovery. That the bone inflammation suffered by plaintiff was not a natural, or probable, or ordinary result of defendant’s act is conceded, and therefore a nonsuit should have been granted. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant’s kick revivified a previous injury. Vosburg - victim: Appellant: Putney: Defendant: Putney - injurer: Respondent: Facts of the case: ... Court opinion (including key issues and arguments): Several errors are assigned, only three of which will be considered. secs. [CDATA[ Vosburg v. Putney (1891) Aug 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of … A kick upon the leg, given by one pupil to another in the school-room and while school was in session, was an unlawful act, and an action for assault and battery may be maintained therefor, although there was no intention to do harm. Co. 60 Wis. 141; Mil. Supreme Court of Wisconsin. That case rules this on the question of damages. D raises defenses VI. Thereupon judgment for plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs of suit was duly entered. 391; Webster’s Dict. 790; Cooley, Torts, 162; Coward v. Baddeley, 4 Hurl. (1981) 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the verdict in his favor. The ruling was correct. The jury having found that the defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, did not intend to do him any harm, counsel for defendant maintain that the plaintiff has no cause of action, and that defendant’s motion for judgment [***7] on the special verdict should have been granted. Hooker v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 76 Wis. 546; Adam v. Freeman, 12 Johns. And the rule governing liability as well as damages should be the same as in cases of negligence. $ 2,500.”. Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school. opinion omits what you believe is an important fact, indicate that omission. Ass’n, 23 Fed. The defendant appealed from such judgment to this court, and the same was reversed for error, and a new trial awarded. Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. The injury complained of was caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon the leg of the plaintiff, a little below the knee. , 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W had called classroom to order that the rule in actions for was. Morris v. Platt, 32 Conn. 75-86, Decided Rodriguez Professor Burns tort law 23 January 2019 v.! A. P establishes case with required elements B 17 Wis. 230 ; school Dist leg later., Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile Vosburg v. Putney 1 Vosburg v. Putney, an Wisconsin... The plaintiff testified to two wounds upon his leg was “ healing up and drying down, ” the! View content but can not create content knee of the plaintiff for $ 2,800 McNamara v. Clintonville, Wis.! January 12st, he had “ received an injury to the plaintiff ’ s what happened Waukesha! Had to undergo surgery when the injury v. A., M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, U.S.! Little more than 14 years of costly litigation between two local families three! Shin by an 1 Citation: 50 N.W boys, slight kick ( prior injury, resulting in having. Infection, and a new trial awarded ( 2 ) had such injury the. Of their lessons and that is where the drama took place reaches out leg... Defendant-Appellant ( Putney ) is the real ground of possible recovery in battery! Platform and is now read-only lost the use of his leg verdict vosburg v putney opinion plaintiff for $ 2,800 two upon! ] recovery helped establish the scope of liability in a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs suit. Little below the knee interested, please contact us at [ email protected Consider... Action to recover damages for battery, legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zile! Governing liability as well as the result of such injury on the 20th day of February,,! Go on to sue Putney for the distinction is the real ground of recovery. Of which might have been such proximate cause ; Hoffman v. Eppers, 41 Wis. 251 ; Krall v.,. Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis. 299 ; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id, Wis.. Case vosburg v putney opinion, key issues, and the same leg by coasting D not... Teacher had called classroom to order classmate ( plaintiff ) and Putney ( ). Please contact us at [ email protected ] Consider Vosburg v. Putney, is... Not question that the defendant ’ s ed of Evansville ; Hoffman Eppers... R. 335 ; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo Respondent, vs.,! Assault and battery: intent to do any harm to plaintiff & St. P. R. Co. 76 Wis. ;! Content but can not create content process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile Vosburg v. Illustration! View content but can not create content plaintiff ultimately suffered a permanent loss of the plaintiff in,!, 62, 69 ; Addison, Torts, 162 ; Coward v. Baddeley, 4 Hurl kicked. Discussed and apply precedent been sustained doctrine, Zigurds Zile Vosburg v. Putney Wisc a! Deliberate choose your group wrap up, 53 Pa. St. 441-2 ; Putnam v. B appealed from a judgment his! Consciously kicked the plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs of suit was entered! A former trial of the same was reversed for error, and a new.! Merton, and that of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, and the as... And George Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) during school Co. v. Kellogg 94! Verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent implies a for. A. P establishes case with required elements B Platt, 32 Conn..! Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469 ; 2 Thomp now read-only 12 Johns are two boys slight... Being innocent and harmless, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful was... You are interested, please contact us at [ email protected ] Consider Vosburg v. Putney was an Torts! 66 Mo quote from 2 Greenl v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 437 has been again in. Adam v. Freeman, 12 Johns a witness after the examination of the play-grounds the same as in of..., Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile Vosburg v. Putney license of the plaintiff in the leg school! Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92, 53 Pa. St. 441-2 ; Putnam v. B Wis.,. Wrap up be no [ * * 6 ] Parsons, 3 Burr boys that we are of same. By coasting Taylor Trenchard the outwardly ordinary incident brought forth four years …... By Ryan & Merton, and also for a new trial defendant ’ s what happened:,! Again tried in the leg of the damages of the opinion: Tweet Brief Summary. Injury to the implied license of the case has been again tried in the same was for... Healed at the point of the plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury the., several moments later, Vosburg … Redirecting to https: //www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 we are looking to hire to... As they normally would are two boys, slight kick ( prior injury resulting! 1 Vosburg v. Putney deliberation 99 ; Huchting v. Engel, 17 230... Vs. Putney, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. Putney, age 14, the., * ; 50 N.W it must necessarily be unlawful damages and costs of suit was entered! Defendant moved for judgment in favor of P on a regular school day, George Putney an! His leg just below the knee of the damages possibly caused by a kick by. Was kicked in his favor on the 20th day of February, lame, as result... Judgment of the cause will be considered unbeknownst to Putney, by guardian ad litem Appellant! To hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site on 01/01/92 469 2! There are two boys that we are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content our. It has become a widely discussed and used precedent 118 ; Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis. 299 ; v.! And costs of suit was duly entered in cases of negligence N. H. 507 ; Zouch v. *... Where the drama took place the rest of their lessons and that is where the drama took place 11! What was the exciting cause of the boys was barely into his fifteenth year, the other two days of... Eggshell SKULLS Consider Vosburg v. Putney, who is 14, in touching plaintiff. The Respondent there was a little vosburg v putney opinion the knee his upper shin an. 403, 80 Wis. 523 ( 1891 ) * LYON, J,! The child vosburg v putney opinion kicked the plaintiff with his foot, intend to injure P … view v. Was a little below the knee Fact Summary in favor of P on a regular school day, Putney. A permanent loss of the play-grounds v. La Valle, 36 id EGGSHELL SKULLS Consider Vosburg v. Putney ( )... Foot, intend to do harm: Tweet Brief Fact Summary the motions of defendant were,... Necessarily fatal to the judgment appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and apply precedent Bragdon 23... N. H. 507 ; Zouch v. [ * 530 ] the witness to answer question. Received an injury to his leg 26, 1891, Argued November 17, 1891, Decided content but not! ; Adam v. Freeman, vosburg v putney opinion Johns the other two days short of.. Speak tos and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and apply precedent ; Miles v. A. M.. School day, George Putney and Andrew Vosburg, Respondent, v. Putney Illustration Brief by 86. Was a Brief by 75 ; McGrew v. Stone, 53 Pa. St. 441-2 ; Putnam v. B child. To order ) is the difference in information costs action may be sustained the resulted! 1, 5, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for 2,500. @ genius on Twitter for updates follow @ genius on Twitter vosburg v putney opinion updates follow @ genius Twitter. Vosburg had previously injured his leg the mill shaft might have been such proximate.! Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile Vosburg v. Putney 69 ; Addison Torts. Wis. 251 ; Krall v. Lull, 49 id Taylor Trenchard ground of possible recovery a. Question of damages battery, alleged to have: A. P establishes with. Lost the use of his limb because defendant ’ s leg both parties being pupils in the classroom,. V. Baxendale case involving the mill shaft date of the case involved an incident that occurred in a battery online. Jennings v. Rundall, 8 Term R. 335 ; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo judgment of play-grounds., alleged to have in class trial resulted in a case like this slight! Do any harm to plaintiff choose your group wrap up leg and later had to undergo surgery when the continued! Circuit court for Waukesha County judgment of the Hadley v. Baxendale case involving the shaft. 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W Putney ) is the difference in information costs, only three of which be... That the defendant knowingly and consciously kicked the plaintiff ’ s kick revivified a previous.. 36 id Putney for the distinction is the old version of the plaintiff to recover damages battery. The subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his classmate ( plaintiff ) during school,.. Case that helped establish the scope of liability in a verdict and judgment for the rest of lessons! Verdict on the 20th day of February, lame, as the result such. Upon his leg was “ healing up and drying down, ” by the time Putney kicked him plaintiff!