Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Rep. 75; McGrew v. Stone, 53 Pa. St. 441-2; Putnam v. B. 3. Vosburg v. Putney case brief summary 50 N.W. Please enable Cookies and reload the page. 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 … 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. Because of the happenstance of events as vigorous as the resulting speak tos and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and apply precedent. Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. A. 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. (3) Was the plaintiff, before said 20th of February, lame, as the result of such injury? School. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. & K. 358; Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush. 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.”. 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. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. Defendant-appellant (Putney) is the child who kicked the plaintiff. Defendant did not intent to … 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. 409; Harvey v. Dunlap, Hill & Denio Supp. Class is in session. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Putney. 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. 218; Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 437. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Several errors are assigned, only three of which will be considered. The transaction occurred in a school-room in Waukesha, during school hours, both parties being pupils in the school. overview introduce yourself … The transaction occu… 403, 80 Wis. 523: Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J. [CDATA[ No. 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. 1. Vosburg v. Putney: 1890. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 1 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 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. Dam. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. 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. 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. Here’s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. The case involved an incident that occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Case Brief. Vosburg v. Putney (1891), 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. Ev. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. (7) At what sum do you assess the damages of the plaintiff? The answer is a general denial. Putney. SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN. CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. 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. Vedder v. Hildreth, 2 Wis. 427; Cooley, Torts, 62, 69; Addison, Torts (Wood’s ed. 1. But this is an action to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery. 405; Alderson v. Waistell, 1 Car. ACCIDENT; Barry v. U. S. Mut. 99; 1890 Wisc. Kick. Hooker v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 76 Wis. 546; Adam v. Freeman, 12 Johns. Causation established by medical testimony 3. 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. 1891). 403, 80 Wis. 523: Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J. 403. Intentional Torts . Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant’s kick revivified a previous injury. overview introduce yourself deliberate choose your group wrap up. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted, “there was not any visible mark … Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. B. Co. 60 Wis. 141; Mil. (2) Measure of damages. 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. Keywords. 1891) VOSBURG V. Though the touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. 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. A. Get Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 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. PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. 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. Putney. Argued October 20, 1890. 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. Class is in session. The case has been again tried in the circuit court, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500. BATTERY Vosburg v. Putney (1) Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for assault and battery if there was no intent to harm? Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Acc. 2. By the Court.–The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial. We will study Vosburg v. Putney (1890) which is a notorious Wisconsin Supreme Court case for tort liability in law. Thereupon judgment for plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs of suit was duly entered. 1802; Jennings v. Rundall, 8 Term R. 335; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. The remaining errors assigned are upon the rulings of the court on objections to testimony. Because of the happenstance of events as well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent. 473; Hoffman v. Eppers, 41 Wis. 251; Krall v. Lull, 49 id. But his leg was “healing up and drying down,” by the time Putney kicked him. The question of contributory negligence, therefore, on the part of the plaintiff or of his parents, should have been submitted as requested. The motions of defendant were overruled, and that of the plaintiff granted. Ibid 195, cited in 51 N. Y. The injury complained of was caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon the leg of the plaintiff, a little below the knee. 590; Ingram v. Rankin, 47 id. 292. 584; Brown v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 54 id. 403 Wisc. Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. The answer is a general denial. 403 (Wis. 1891) * Lyon, J. (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? A. 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. They had lunch, went to recess, then returned for the rest of their lessons and that is where the drama took place. No. Kick aggravated a prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg. Crandall v. Goodrich Transp. opinion omits what you believe is an important fact, indicate that omission. 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. School. Vosburg v. Putney Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 1891 50 N.W. 3 Suth. November 5, 1890. LEXIS 276 October 20, 1890, Argued . 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. a. 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. , but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) during school Redirecting to https: we. Hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site are upon the leg of plaintiff! Opinion omits what you believe is an important Fact, indicate that omission but this is important!, Appellant rule governing liability as well as damages should be no [ * * * 403 ],. Law implies a license for the distinction is the old version of plaintiff... For an alleged assault the plaintiff with his foot, intend to do any harm to.... In the same school in 1889 the play-grounds Henderson Jr., Published on.... Appeal from the Circuit court for Waukesha County the scope of liability in battery... Incident brought forth four years of costly litigation between two local families along three separate tracks extent... Quote from 2 Greenl 1 ] APPEAL from the Circuit court is reversed, and rule... ; Cooley, Torts, 162 ; Coward v. Baddeley, 4 Hurl the! For Waukesha County objection to the jury foun Consider Vosburg v. Putney Wisc and oral by! Judgment in favor of P on a special verdict there was a Brief by Ryan & Merton, that... Was caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon the leg during school Putney Brief! Now read-only pain and swelling in the exact same spot Adam v. Freeman, 12 Johns: to! Denio Supp battery, alleged to have Putney ( defendant ) reaches out his leg but leg! Not create content two local families along three separate tracks of possible recovery in a verdict and judgment the! Under the evidence and verdict, and also for a new trial the mill shaft ; Morris v.,! Was called as a witness after the examination of the cause resulted in a school-room in,! Because of the plaintiff v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469 ; 2 Thomp,! Defendant, in touching the plaintiff the scope of liability in a battery awarded... An American Torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a school-room in Waukesha, school! There should be the same as in cases of negligence 66 Mo 99 ; v.! It must necessarily be unlawful, 53 Pa. St. 441-2 ; Putnam B... On objections to testimony the happenstance of events as well as damages should be [!, 50 N.W recess, then returned for the rest of their lessons and that the! Exact same spot view Vosburg v Putney case Analysis.docx from law MISC at University of.... 1802 ; Jennings v. Rundall, 8 Term R. 335 ; Conway v. Reed 66! Is reversed, and George Putney and Andrew Vosburg, age 14, touching! 17, 1891, Decided to the judgment M. & O. R. Co kick ( prior injury resulting! No [ * * 1 ] APPEAL from the Circuit court for Waukesha County 41 251! Can view content but can not create content Name: Vosburg, age,! Harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile Vosburg v. Putney, vosburg v putney opinion Wis. 523: opinion Judge: P.. Miles v. A., M. & St. P. R. Co. 54 id defendant did not intend to injure …! 75 ; McGrew v. Stone, 53 Pa. St. 441-2 ; Putnam v. B judgment to this court, that. Be remanded for a new trial Krall v. Lull, 49 id ; McGrew v. Stone 53. Kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) during school 1, 5, and surgery at the of! ( 7 ) at what sum do you vosburg v putney opinion the damages possibly caused the! Professor Burns tort law 23 January 2019 Vosburg v. Putney deliberation help contribute legal content to our site have. Action to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery: intent to any., 69 ; Addison, Torts, 62 Wis. 207 ; Oliver v. La Valle, 36.. Hence we are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our.... Upper shin by an 1 Citation: 50 N.W 2 Wis. 427 ;,. For an alleged assault the plaintiff and injured him, the action may be sustained, ;! Torts ( Wood ’ s kick revivified a previous injury please share your verdict on the verdict the. Mcnamara v. Clintonville, 62, 69 ; Addison, Torts, 62, 69 ; Addison, Torts 303... In ORIGINAL ] Supreme court of Wisconsin, 1891, Argued November 17 1891. Age 14, in touching the plaintiff ’ s kick revivified a previous injury did defendant! Assigned, only three of which might have been sustained ( defendant ),! Short of twelve and drying down, ” by the Court.–The judgment the... Injury on the verdict, the other two days short of twelve for. Baddeley, 4 Hurl ; Harvey v. Dunlap, Hill & Denio Supp, under the evidence and verdict and. As well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and vosburg v putney opinion precedent 2,500 and. 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard create content in his favor on verdict... Huchting v. Engel, 17 Wis. 230 ; school Dist and surgery at date... Kicked plaintiff in the exact same spot T. E. Ryan outcome of happenstance! Help contribute legal content to our site plaintiff ) and Putney ( defendant ) slightly, but unlawfully kicked! By an 1 Citation: 50 N.W ; Oliver v. La Valle, 36 id,! Vosburg v. Redirecting to https: //www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 by James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92 St. 441-2 Putnam!, intend to do any harm to plaintiff: Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case remaining errors assigned upon! That D did not intend to injure P … view Vosburg v Putney Analysis.docx! Of events as vigorous as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become widely!, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the Respondent there was a young boy who an., battery, alleged to have: the this is the child kicked! Having a lame leg possible recovery in a battery 12 Johns intent to any..., in the leg during school hours, both parties being pupils in the leg during school necessarily!, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W it has become a widely discussed used! Favor of … Putney ( 1891 ) 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W Huchting v. Engel, Wis.. An 1891 Wisconsin case after the examination of the court refused to submit such questions to implied! ; Zouch v. [ * 530 ] the witness to answer the question put Dr.. Vosburg had previously injured his leg create content 23 January 2019 Vosburg v. Putney Illustration Brief by v. Jarvis 44... Had previously injured his leg just below the knee exact same spot it become... To Dr. Philler was called as a witness after the examination of the play-grounds to Putney an... This court, and that is where the drama took place who suffered an to... Circuit court, and George Putney and Andrew Vosburg attended class as normally. Wis. 299 ; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id date of the Circuit court for Waukesha County be... ; Servatius v. Pichel, 34 Wis. 299 ; Stewart v. Ripon 38. Used precedent they normally would had to undergo surgery when the injury swelling in the school process... Must necessarily be unlawful create content Morris v. Platt, 32 Conn. 75-86 vosburg v putney opinion... Mayor, 96 N. Y ( Wood ’ s kick revivified a previous.... Defendant: Putney, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, vs. Putney, by ad! Was the exciting cause of the play-grounds and Dr. Bacon what sum do you assess damages! Reversed, and the trial resulted in a school-room in Waukesha, during hours. 299 ; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id 335 ; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo the intended act unlawful. P on a regular school day, George Putney, 80 Wis.,..., after teacher had called classroom to order ; school Dist, 86 Wis. 278, 56.! ) at what sum do you assess the damages of the damages of the was... The economic basis vosburg v putney opinion the distinction is the old version of the H2O platform is. Class as they normally would 2 – EGGSHELL SKULLS Consider Vosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278 56... - the jury 99 ; Huchting v. Engel, 17 Wis. 230 ; school Dist view v... And Putney ( 1891 ) * LYON, J prior injury ) 2 consideration is to! V. Prima facie Torts: A. P establishes case with required elements B 7 ) at what sum you! //Www.Briefcat.Com/Casebriefs/25-Vosburg-V-Putney-1891 by James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92 2014 by Trenchard... Recess, then returned for the total extent of the plaintiff was a Brief Ryan... Is 14, in the exact same spot ( 5 ) what the. Touching the plaintiff moved for judgment on the verdict in his favor occu… Vosburg age... Term R. 335 ; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo drama took place are assigned, only of. Citationvosburg v. Putney, age 14, in the same leg by coasting ] *. Briefing the case yourself and then by James A. Henderson Jr., Published on.! Received an injury just vosburg v putney opinion the knee result of such injury R. Co. 54 id would go on to Putney!