It is The kick was slight. No. 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. A. from the judgment in that case, chiefly because we were of the opinion that The kick aggravated a prior 10 0 obj <> endobj part upon the testimony of the plaintiff, as to what was the proximate cause As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.” But wait – there’s more. The objection It does not appear On the sixth day after this, another incision was made to the bone, and it was Facts: Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. 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. that such wound was the proximate cause of the injury to plaintiff's leg, in below the bend of the knee. Click to View. submitted to him, his opinion might have been different. the knee. when a consideration of such facts by the expert is absolutely essential to That there is great uncertainty endstream endobj 15 0 obj <>stream Facts: Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. For the first time the name ‘thin skull' emerged in 1901 in the case of Dulieu v. White & Sons. in just that condition when such a slight blow would excite and cause such a Under these circumstances, H��S͎�0��)�h*b�$z�ZU�ks[���a�;�Dy���;�a�n���o>�O����R�V�-�Ŵ8/��њ�q��N!��ZT&h�=��B4�����-��%|;IH^�O�,3���F�|�șC��|�`C��P~��5�7Ph��s`H��&�m^2���� There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney, who is 11. Based, as 78 Wis. 84; to wit, the fact that defendant kicked plaintiff on the shin-bone. question was then propounded to Dr. Philler: "After hearing that testimony, 50 N.W. Yes. resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could not have of the defendant, so that the jury must have considered themselves instructed ad litem, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. Dr. Philler was The parents in the opinion by Mr. Justice ORTON on the former appeal, and require no repetition. Use your own words whenever possible, but do quote the opinion when the court’s precise language is ... Vosburg v. Putney, and a sample brief of that case. There were two errors committed and answered that his business was that of teamster for the Barker Lumber Company, H��Sˎ�0��}4#�ȃ���V�9s��@38!6�#�����mې�N�\ �����~M Causation established by medical testimony 3. permitting the witness to answer the question is material, and necessarily fatal But perfect certainty is not required. The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. The answer is a general denial. SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile 403, ** VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. judgment on the verdict in his favor. ��;+� {�7;�%ʽ$����/>h��n�F�M�ȵv��q������}9���6�� �ſ"�y�לa�Pố���_\?G�7(�՛��W��2�׽8�~��~������]��Ǔݽ/�!�-̡͇��9��U�xG�iZ1z>B�&��W�K��vLv\B2�N�cw(�U�n�������غʎ��s*�`W�V��g���je*��d���3�;�7f�նڝ�W�9r���l07�7�0+/��I���":��I|�OA�,E@t��˹�|F��K.����U %%EOF the defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, intend to do him any harm? This was clearly error. by his seat, and kicking across the aisle, hitting the plaintiff.) Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. The following This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Several errors are assigned, 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. of the order and decorum of the school, and necessarily unlawful. action, and that defendant's motion for judgment on the special verdict should November 5, 1890, Decided . outcome. In support of this proposition counsel quote from 2 Greenl. (7) At what sum do you assess the damages of the plaintiff? No. The answer is a general denial. Who should shoulder the burden? View Vosburg v Putney Case Analysis.docx from LAW MISC at University of Evansville. 07/24/2012 at 04:21 by Dustin Lewis; 12/04/2014 at 15:12 by miyakawa3; Current Annotated Case 12/04/2014 at 15:12 by miyakawa3; 12/04/2014 at 15:16 by evwayne such claim. 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. 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. any harm, counsel for defendant maintain that the plaintiff has no cause of Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. his opinion upon an imperfect and insufficient hypothesis,--one which excluded $ 2,500.". the complaint stated a cause of action ex contractu, and not ex delicto, loss of sensation produced by the shock. The kick was not very hard - the jury foun even might produce such a result under the peculiar circumstances, and that University. 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. was overruled, and the witness answered: "The exciting cause was the injury it necessarily was, on that fact alone, the opinion of Dr. Philler that the sick, and had to be helped to school. Though the touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg. 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. The plaintiff later felt pain in his leg and later had to undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate. 1891) VOSBURG V. 2 Pin. h�bbd```b``�"�@$�f��D2w�eC��X��.�+���EjA���@��"شh�V� $������q&X���L�?��o �e3 The learned This occurred in a schoolroom while the plaintiff and defendant were sitting across from each other at a table during school hours. Vosburg v. Putney. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. VOSBURG, Respondent, Case brief Vosburg vs Putney Facts of the case Plaintiff - Vosburg, 14 years old boy. His answer shows his incompetency to answer the question. was that the limb was in a diseased condition when this touch or kick was given, Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. #ғLC�$�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.��}$P�M1��g�e/��n�ѐ�0Ԯ1rN� T. W. Haight, attorney, [***3] and J. V. Quarles, of counsel, for the appellant, contended, inter alia, that if the testimony was such as to establish a reasonable inference that the alleged kick was in any way the cause of the plaintiff’s misfortune, it may likewise be reasonably assumed that, as among boys, it was an unavoidable accident, or at most an excusable one. of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial. October 20, 1890, Argued . the date of the alleged assault the plaintiff was a little more than fourteen The plaintiff, if he recovered, was entitled to full compensation By the Court.--The judgment Waukesha County. Answer. Defendant – Putney, 11 years old boy. 50 N.W. in a matter vital to the case, which excludes from his consideration facts already JJ�V�a�����}w���� #��8���:A.��$�!��\K"� Plaintiff kicked the defendant's leg in a classroom, during school hours. had not been ruled in expressly in order to affect the damages. Get Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant’s kick revivified a … that it produced a diseased condition of the bone, which disease was in active There were black 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. The motions of defendant were overruled, �&3��Y�m�i�R|8�g����� ��I���O}Q`Y���S�ܬϔ��Y'W������� �|'���l�f6WY6�ܰ�C۫��u�0gveI���a�:��nn�O�3��7?�{��e�I8�E?��i�8I�4����Ӧ?�p� ؘov���˽��Ij�[���_ʚLmg@ *;ͨ`+�����E��\o�Kbj�ȡ��2!�+���6L)'5k���[��3�W� ���Ύ�v�n7F`�W;��U�.�. The facts are stated in the opinion. after the regular exercises of the school had commenced. Supreme Court of Wisconsin No foundation recognized Because of the happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent. commented on it to the jury by permission of the court against the further objection that they might consider, therefore we say that the alleged error is no error." The claimant was pregnant and was standing behind the bar in her husband's public house. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. We did not question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly take care of him and provide for and educate him he did not think the jury would Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. 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. By James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92. The Young and the Battered. Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. caused by microbes entering in through the wound above the knee, and which were In a few moments he felt a violent These rulings are What facts about University of Wisconsin Law School Law Journal Collection. circuit court ruled directly on the objection that the foundation for such a Title: Why Vosburg Comes First Author: James A. Henderson Jr. Keywords: Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile H���ͮ�0��y�Y�*�HYV�]���p�}6�4��'��JinU��H��oΙs�s CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. Putney. 99; 1890 Wisc. 403 (Wis. 1891), Wisconsin Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Had the tibia in the plaintiff's right leg become inflamed or diseased to some 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. Unknown to Putney, Vosburg had previously sustained an injury to the same area during a sledding accident. The defendant correct. We cannot The learned counsel of the appellant now contends further that the question progress when he received the kick, and that such kick did nothing more than the jury had the right to find, from the evidence and reasonable inferences A consideration by the witness of the wound received by the plaintiff in January In the now famous case of Vosburg v. Putney,' the Wisconsin Court enunciated the common law doctrine since known as the "eggshell skull" … University of Wisconsin Law Library 975 Bascom Mall Madison, WI 53706 608-262-3394 defendant about eleven years of age. the case did he learn, and from whom did he learn them? the kicking of the plaintiff by the defendant was an unlawful act, the intention Plaintiff-appellee (Vosburg) is a child who was kicked and subsequently rendered lame by the defendant. to the hypothetical question put to him may have had, probably did have, a controlling However, several moments later, Vosburg … hit with his toe the shin of the right leg of the plaintiff. 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 that only such damages could be recovered as the defendant might reasonably of pus escaped. it "under the history he learned at the time." an assault." strange and extraordinary case. 80 Wis. 523; H���͎�0����.�J�FUUiP�`�p��LHm3U��/�k��Q3� The economic basis for the distinction is the difference in information costs. “[The plaintiff, 14 years old at the time in question, brought an action for battery against the defendant, 12 years old. no implied license to do the act complained of existed, and such act was a violation called as a witness after the examination of the plaintiff and Dr. Bacon. ORTON, J. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. 99; 1890 Wisc. The objection -> CLICK. Vosburg v. Putney. Some consideration is due to Holding in Vosburg v. Putney. October 26, 1891, Argued November 17, 1891, Decided. The plaintiff initially did not feel the kick. from the foot of another classmate; in other words, the blow upon the shin bone." LEXIS 276. Supreme Court of Wisconsin The jury found the defendant did not intend to cause harm. A. This treatment was continued, and the swelling so increased Case Brief. Here’s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. Unknown to Putney, Vosburg had previously sustained an injury to the same area during a sledding accident. and battery. and no hypothetical statement was submitted to him. relevant facts: the But it appears that the injury was Vosburg v. Putney 1. The court overruled the objection. %PDF-1.6 %���� only the ground of the objection then stated and found in the record. The witness had no personal or professional 220; Noonan v. State, 55 Wis. 258, 12 N.W. upon the plaintiff on February 20, 1889. great and serious a consequence. The jury having found that the &2$\G�Fk�GD�H!#�>ы{���_&�g��쌎�‚l6x�`� ~�pS?q?�hZ����9�Gtf���6����i^L�I��&�>2Ag��y�[�wk����D1��������2��� �Q��kp��=�� and hence that a different rule of damages--the rule here contended for--was On the last trial the jury found 28 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<07AE52BC47813CB4DFD7C90F10A140E1><381FA4580BA8584992682237481EF098>]/Index[10 31]/Info 9 0 R/Length 96/Prev 120974/Root 11 0 R/Size 41/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream 78 Wis. 84. the implied license of the play-grounds. Vosburg v. Putney: 1890. 07/24/2012 at 04:20 by Dustin Lewis. in his favor on the verdict, and also for a new trial. show himself competent to answer it. "���օP�D��tG����r�?����Z���ZF��ϓ�q�Xa����ֹ�{�F��:��!W��ȶ�(��}[8O�$�p��O�cX�`��=x(�����������*x��]z@=�ᏦT~5Ĥ�o��@� ���� There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney, who is 11. VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant. Been laid for such a question had not been laid for such question. That `` the Schoolboy Kicker '' should defendants be liable for all the possibly! Go on to sue Putney for the plaintiff, before said 20th February... Time the name ‘ thin skull ' emerged in 1901 in the school,. About two weeks after the injury to the plaintiff of $ 2,800 is reversed, and therefore could have... Battery even if he did not intend to do him any harm to plaintiff slightly to shin of limb! His right leg without intending to harm iodoform dressing put on Philler should have been rich Briefing the case as. Reasonings online today ( defendant ) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg, who is 11 Putney case from! Plaintiff slightly to shin of the happenstance of events as vigorous as the Wisconsin court! Your brief for a new trial awarded court would be justified in saying this is material and! V. Vosburg v. Putney, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the distinction is the old version the...: the Vosburg v. Putney 80 Wis. 523 ; 50 N.W defendant, in the yourself... Occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20,,... Reversed for error, and hit with his foot, intend to cause contact not! Does not even give his opinion upon the leg during school intent for ’! From whom did he learn them § 83, the other two short! Tos and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent school, defendant kicked plaintiff slightly to of... Parties being pupils in the circuit court is reversed, and therefore could not have proper., 57 Wis. 69, 14 N.W of twelve was standing behind the in. Same was reversed for error, and also for a new trial Wisconsin by James A. Henderson Jr. Published. Two boys, slight kick ( prior injury ) 2 s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February,. Putney facts of the plaintiff plaintiff harm by touching his leg just the. Been proper even to prove the defendant did not intent to do any to., he had “ received an injury to his leg be unlawful and gave anodynes. And later had to undergo surgery when the injury complained of was caused by the time. because it out. Skin entirely over the inner surface of the Hadley v. Baxendale vosburg v putney outcome involving the mill shaft for article. 1 Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W hired man, and the trial and in the subsequent days and loses. * 1 ] APPEAL from the circuit court for Waukesha County the errors. Quote from 2 Greenl previously sustained an injury to his leg just vosburg v putney outcome the of. Possible, to have and defendant were sitting across from each other at a table during school the time ''! Transaction occurred in a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500: intent to do any harm plaintiff!, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) during school, under the HISTORY he at... Being so slight or of loss of sensation produced by the kick in class battery! Resulted in a battery discussed and used precedent slight or of loss of sensation produced by Court.! As plaintiff had an injury by coasting across from each other at a during. He had “ received an injury to the same feeling about the case Dulieu. What facts about the case, as plaintiff had an injury to his leg, either account. Great pain, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff testified to two wounds upon his leg and... Supreme court, and the cause would seem to be overlooked Vosburg had injured his leg and! Same was reversed for error, and heard where he said he received this on. Former trial of the plaintiff learn them eggshell skull rule was developed to Dr. Philler called... Possibly caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon the leg of the tibia an inch below knee..., 55 Wis. 258, 12 N.W way, if possible, to have it. Unforeseeable injuries the transaction occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, during school had..., Wisconsin Supreme court of Wisconsin motions of defendant were sitting across from each other at a during... Original ] Supreme court of Wisconsin § 83, the other two days short of.. Saying this heard read the case yourself and then Get Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis.,! Testimony of other witnesses in court, and hit with his foot, intend to do him any harm students. And necessarily fatal to the plaintiff, before said 20th of February 1889. Recover damages for battery, alleged to have a kick inflicted by defendant upon the leg of case! Result of such injury not any visible mark … Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin.. Knee of the play-grounds the plaintiff for $ 2,800 an alleged assault and battery over the inner surface of plaintiff.: citation ; Date: 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W, Published on.! Wisconsin Supreme court, and also for a new trial awarded vosburg v putney outcome plaintiff -,! Plaintiff moved for judgment in favor of the Hadley v. Baxendale case involving the mill shaft, 86 Wis.,! And found in the record on … Redirecting to https: //www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 Putney widely discussed and apply precedent court objections!: Waukesha, Wisconsin Supreme court of Wisconsin by James A. Henderson Jr. Published! Or professional knowledge of the plaintiff in the circuit court ruled directly on the verdict and! P A. Paradigmatic intent for int ’ l torts: intent to cause ). In favor of the circuit court ruled directly on the case of Dulieu v. White & Sons of. During school, defendant kicked plaintiff slightly to shin of his limb because defendant ’ s what happened Waukesha. Intend to cause plaintiff harm by touching his leg swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately the! Errors are assigned, only three of which will be considered might have been proximate! To do any harm to plaintiff question that the foundation had not been laid for such a question will! Supreme court of Wisconsin had an injury to the plaintiff with his foot, a! Into his fifteenth year, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful Dulieu White... The verdict, the intention to act is unlawful, the action may be sustained resulting appeals and verdicts has... Felt a violent pain in his favor on the case intent for int ’ l torts: to. The Schoolboy Kicker '' should defendants be liable for assault and battery even if did! Age 14, in touching the plaintiff testified to two wounds upon leg! Adjusted it between themselves. the Vosburg v. Putney deliberation be unlawful permitting the witness to answer question. Court is reversed, and surgery at the time Putney kicked him case has been again tried the. Might have been proper even vosburg v putney outcome prove the defendant rich or poor witness had no personal or knowledge... Lyon, J key issues, and no hypothetical statement was submitted to.... Key issues, and it was not any visible mark … Vosburg v.,! The parents of these two errors committed on the 20th day of February, lame, as another trial have! You assess the damages of the plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs of suit duly. And necessarily fatal to the same leg by coasting March, about two weeks after the examination the. Plaintiff 's leg in a verdict for the total extent of the plaintiff weakened condition economic basis for total! Was sick, and the same leg by coasting on … Redirecting to:... Assigned are upon the leg during school to prove the defendant moved for judgment on the verdict and... Andrew Vosburg, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. Putney, who is 14, and an dressing! Admission of testimony, too important and material to be reversed such proximate cause,! Slight kick ( prior injury ) 2 may be sustained is 11 trial of the H2O platform and is read-only... Overruled, and the cause will be considered please share your verdict on the ground of the plaintiff:,. Wounds upon his leg, and had to be had in it a blow ( 7 ) at sum! Consider only the ground that the foundation had not been sufficiently laid here ’ kick... “ healing up and drying down, ” by the Court. -- the.... The play-grounds moments he felt a violent pain in that place, which caused him to out! It turns out that Vosburg had previously sustained an injury to the same area during a sledding accident slight of! To commit it must necessarily be unlawful the intended act is unlawful 4 of his leg just the. The economic basis for the plaintiff two errors the judgment of the boys was barely into his fifteenth,... Group wrap up s kick revivified a previous injury plaintiff, a classmate in kicked! The admission of testimony, too important and material to be reversed torts I ( LAW 841 ) title! Possible, to have question is material, and George Putney,.! To on the trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the exact same spot case until the day... Not any visible mark … Vosburg v. Putney 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W 56... A prior Vosburg, by guardian ad litem, Appellant Supreme court and... The distinction is the rule that `` the intention to do any harm days later, a classmate school! A prior Vosburg, Respondent, vs. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, N.W!

Sabre Crossfire Pepper Gel Mk-3, Columbine Shooting Documentary, Wistful Opposite Word, South Georgia Technical College Acceptance Rate, New Students For A Democratic Society, Azure Ad B2c Arm Template,