13 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. At the date of the alleged assault the plaintiff was a little more than 14 years of … The answer is a general denial. Northern Kentucky University. [*527] [**403] LYON, J. 391; Peterson v. Haffner, 59 Ind. 714; McNamara v. Clintonville, 62 Wis. 207; Oliver v. La Valle, 36 id. Running head: VOSBURG V. PUTNEY 1 Vosburg v. Putney Case Briefing 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. That case rules this on the question of damages. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. 3 Suth. 1891). This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Vosburg v. Putney Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 1891 50 N.W. A. secs. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. 1. Because it turns out that Vosburg had previously injured his leg. The plaintiff testified to two wounds upon his leg, either of which might have been such proximate cause. 403 (Wisc. 3. 403 (Wisc. Because of the happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent. 403 (Wis. 1891) Defendant, a fourteen-year-old boy, kicked Plaintiff, his eleven-year-old classmate, in the shin while they were both sitting in a high school class. 99; 1890 Wisc. Vosburg v. Putney 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. (5) What was the exciting cause of the injury to the plaintiff’s leg? 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. Redirecting to https://www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 It being shown that the defendant knowingly and consciously kicked the plaintiff and injured him, the nonsuit was properly denied. 403 (Wis. 1891) * Lyon, J. 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); “[The plaintiff, 14 years old at the time in question, brought an action for battery against the defendant, 12 years old. Dam. tit. But his leg was “healing up and drying down,” by the time Putney kicked him. Plaintiff ultimately suffered a permanent loss of the use of his leg. 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. The remaining errors assigned are upon the rulings of the court on objections to testimony. 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. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Redirecting to https://www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 2. The answer [***11] of Dr. Philler to the hypothetical question put to him may have had, probably did have, a controlling influence with the jury, for they found by their verdict that his opinion was correct. 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. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. The plaintiff testified, as a witness in his own behalf, as to the circumstances of the alleged injury inflicted upon him by the defendant, and also in regard to the wound he received in January, near the same knee, mentioned in the special verdict. Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. 195, cited in 51 N. Y. Facts: Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. 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. Yes. 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile 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. Party Name: VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant Vosburg v. Putney. Cooley, Torts, 98, 99; Huchting v. Engel, 17 Wis. 230; School Dist. LEXIS 276 In support of this proposition counsel quote from 2 Greenl. Jury found that D did not intend to injure P … Keywords. Vosburg v. Putney: 1890. overview introduce yourself deliberate choose your group wrap up. Vosburg v. Putney case brief summary 50 N.W. School. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. Below is the case opinion which you will need to read and answer the questions at the end of the case by Thursday: VOSBURG, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, Appellant. !function(t,e,r){var n,s=t.getElementsByTagName(e)[0],i=/^http:/.test(t.location)? 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. Rep. 712; U. S. Mut. In 1891, this was the scene for a common schoolboy scruff that turned contentious, and then turned historical. 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. Vosburg v. Putney. Battery i. Vosburg v. Putney 1. 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.”. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant’s kick revivified a previous injury. Sign in Register; Hide. Thereupon judgment for plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs of suit was duly entered. Wisconsin Supreme Court 50 N.W. 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. Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school. Ibid; Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] Queen's Bench Division, 2 QB 405 (Queen's Bench Division). Jump to navigation Jump to search. 403 (Wisc. 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. Acc. Title: Why Vosburg Comes First Author: James A. Henderson Jr. Keywords: Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile LEXIS 276. 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. SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. For the respondent there was a brief by Ryan & Merton, and oral argument by T. E. Ryan. VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent. Class is in session. Putney. 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. Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school. D appealed but appellate court upheld decision. "http":"https";t.getElementById(r)||(n=t.createElement(e),n.id=r,n.src=i+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js",s.parentNode.insertBefore(n,s))}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); The defendant appealed from such judgment to this court, and the same was reversed for error, and a new trial awarded. Ass’n, 23 Fed. //]]>, Sorry, we have to make sure you're a human before we can show you this page. 78 Wis. 84. The case has been again tried in the circuit court, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 1 The facts are stated in the opinion. Crandall v. Goodrich Transp. 403, 80 Wis. 523: Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J. Because of the happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent. In vosburg v. Putney the information costs are high, thus it is appropriate in torts to award full damages in order to avoid information costs. ), 1, 5, and note; Bigelow, Torts, 312; Miles v. A., M. & O. R. Co. Defendant did not intent to … 1802; Jennings v. Rundall, 8 Term R. 335; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. 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.” VOSBURG, Respondent, vs. PUTNEY, Appellant. A. The transaction occurred in a school-room in Waukesha, during school hours, both parties being pupils in the school. But this is an action to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery. The injury complained of was caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon the leg of the plaintiff, a little below the knee. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. 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. 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. Ibid University. Putney. 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 The answer is a general denial. 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. Synopsis of Rule of Law. 292; Morris v. Platt, 32 Conn. 75-86. The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Ev. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. The answer is a general denial. That case rules this on the question of damages. 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. [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN . Citation: 50 N.W. ACCIDENT; Barry v. U. S. Mut. Plaintiff-appellee (Vosburg) is a child who was kicked and subsequently rendered lame by the defendant. 403, 80 Wis. 523: Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J. 1981 Supreme Court of Wisconsin OPINION OF THE COURT: LYON, JUSTICE FACTS: During school hours, the Defendant 11-year-old George Putney, kicked the Plaintiff, 14-year-old Andrew Vosburg, in the upper shin. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury Questions in Vosburg v. 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. October 26, 1891, Argued If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu.Thank you. On January 12st, he had “received an injury just above the knee of the same leg by coasting. 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. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the verdict in his favor. 488; Paxton v. Boyer, 67 Ill. 132; Morris v. Platt, 32 Conn. 75; Phillips v. Dickerson, 85 Ill. 11; Marvin v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. [***4] 79 Wis. 140. The motions of defendant were overruled, and that of the plaintiff granted. Trial court ruled in favor of P on a special verdict. 405; Alderson v. Waistell, 1 Car. View Vosburg v Putney Case Analysis.docx from LAW MISC at University of Evansville. Because of the happenstance of events as vigorous as the resulting speak tos and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and apply precedent. § 83, the rule that “the intention to do harm is of the essence of an assault.” Such is the rule, no doubt, in actions or prosecutions for mere assaults. Vedder v. Hildreth, 2 Wis. 427; Cooley, Torts, 62, 69; Addison, Torts (Wood’s ed. Though the touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg. V. Prima facie torts: a. P establishes case with required elements b. & S. A. R. Co. 55 N. Y. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. The defendant appeals from the judgment. 362; Ehrgott v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 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. (1981) 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. The question of contributory negligence, therefore, on the part of the plaintiff or of his parents, should have been submitted as requested. The answer is a general denial. & N. 478; Christopherson v. Bare, 11 Q. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. [CDATA[ A. We did not question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly stated. Party Name: VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. We did not question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly stated. (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? Rep. 354. The kick was slight. relevant facts: the Kick. 403 (Wisc. Negligence is the real ground of possible recovery in a case like this. By James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92. (3) Was the plaintiff, before said 20th of February, lame, as the result of such injury? 590; Ingram v. Rankin, 47 id. Ev. The court refused to submit such questions to the jury. Ass’n v. Barry, 131 U.S. 100; Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush. By the Court.–The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial. 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. citation vosburg putney plaintiff defendant (1891) ii. The answer is a general denial. 1891) VOSBURG V. Here’s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. Defendant-appellant (Putney) is the child who kicked the plaintiff. 218; Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 437. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. 346; Oliver v. McClellan, 21 Ala. 675; Barham v. Turbeville, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 437; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 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. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. School. Co. 16 Fed. 118; Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis. 299; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id. 1083. Get Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. BATTERY Vosburg v. Putney (1) Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for assault and battery if there was no intent to harm? & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469; 2 Thomp. The error in permitting [*530] the witness to answer the question is material, and necessarily fatal to the judgment. PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. Vosburg v Putney [1891] Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 80 Wis 523; 50 NW 403 Wisc (Supreme Court of Wisconsin) Duilieu v White & sons [1901] High Court King's Bench, 2 KB 669 (High Court King's Bench). 82-85; 2 Addison, Torts, sec. Unbeknownst to Putney, … QUESTION 2 – EGGSHELL SKULLS Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. [***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. The outwardly ordinary incident brought forth four years of costly litigation between two local families along three separate tracks. Course. Putney. Talk:Vosburg v. Putney. However, Plaintiff experienced great pain, a severe infection, and surgery at the kicked place. D raises defenses VI. Certain questions were proposed on behalf of defendant to be submitted to the jury, founded upon the theory that only such damages could be recovered as the defendant might reasonably be supposed to have contemplated as likely to result from his kicking the plaintiff. Vosburg (plaintiff) and Putney (defendant) were both students in the same school in 1889. The kick was not very hard - the jury foun 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. These rulings are not very likely to be repeated on another trial, and are not of sufficient importance to require a review of them on this appeal. The plaintiff later felt pain in his leg and later had to undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate. 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. Vosburg V - Summary The Torts Process. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. 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. And the rule governing liability as well as damages should be the same as in cases of negligence. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] They had lunch, went to recess, then returned for the rest of their lessons and that is where the drama took place. 99; 1890 Wisc. 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. A. Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school. Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. 473; Hoffman v. Eppers, 41 Wis. 251; Krall v. Lull, 49 id. Kick aggravated a prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg. allison guenette id 355902567 legal analysis political science 402 dr. waggoner, august 21, 2018 vosburg putney, 80 wis. 523; 50 403 (1891). 50 N.W. 592; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id. 403 (Wis. 1891), Wisconsin Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. (2) Measure of damages. As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.” But wait – there’s more. No. WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class) ... 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 … On a regular school day, George Putney and Andrew Vosburg attended class as they normally would. Co. 60 Wis. 141; Mil. Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. opinion omits what you believe is an important fact, indicate that omission. Follow @genius We will study Vosburg v. Putney (1890) which is a notorious Wisconsin Supreme Court case for tort liability in law. 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. 130; Conklin v. Thompson, 29 Barb. 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. They argued, among other things, that where an infant commits a wrong to another, whether wilfully or negligently, or by the direct application of force, or the indirect results of force, the law, while regarding his youth or inexperience and making due allowance for absence of evil intent or capacity for evil intent, proceeds upon the reason that damages directly resulting to another from the wrong he has committed ought to be recompensed. 346, 27 Am. 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. Intentional Torts . If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful. VOSBURG, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, Appellant. 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. Case Brief. PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. $ 2,500.”. Hooker v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 76 Wis. 546; Adam v. Freeman, 12 Johns. No. (6) Did the defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, intend to do him any harm? 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. Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. (3) Facts After the teacher had called the class to order and while in the classroom, the defendant-student intentionally kicked the shin of the plaintiff, a fellow classmate. -> CLICK. Facts and Procedural History. a. P sued D for damages. 1891). Consider first briefing the case yourself and then Defendant kicked plaintiff in shin, after teacher had called classroom to order. The economic basis for the distinction is the difference in information costs. Neg. Acc. 408; Cooley, Torts, 303, 163; Thayer v. Jarvis, 44 Wis. 390. 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. Note the different outcome of the Hadley v. Baxendale case involving the mill shaft. November 5, 1890. In such case the rule is correctly stated, in many of the authorities cited by counsel, that HN1 plaintiff must show either that the intention was unlawful, or that the defendant is in fault. 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. 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. //