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. 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. 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. 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 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. Wisconsin Supreme Court 50 N.W. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. Class is in session. Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. The defendant moved for judgment in his favor on the verdict, and also for a new trial. 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. Here’s what happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin, February 20, 1889. The error in permitting [*530] the witness to answer the question is material, and necessarily fatal to the judgment. Defendant kicked plaintiff in shin, after teacher had called classroom to order. Course. 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? 1891) VOSBURG V. There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney… 403 (Wis. 1891) * Lyon, J. B. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. 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. 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. 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. § 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. 346, 27 Am. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. The economic basis for the distinction is the difference in information costs. A. (1) Assault and battery: Intent to do harm. If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful. "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"); Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. Follow @genius on Twitter for updates 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. Please share your verdict on the Vosburg v. Putney deliberation. Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school. Acc. In support of this proposition counsel quote from 2 Greenl. & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469; 2 Thomp. Crandall v. Goodrich Transp. Party Name: VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant 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. The motive and purpose being innocent and harmless, the law implies a license for the defendant’s act. > VOSBURG v. PUTNEY, 80 Wis. 523 (1891) 80 Wis. 523, *; 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891) Facts . Causation established by medical testimony 3. Case Brief. 405; Alderson v. Waistell, 1 Car. 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. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] (5) What was the exciting cause of the injury to the plaintiff’s leg? Defendant-appellant (Putney) is the child who kicked the plaintiff. A. Yes. The plaintiff later felt pain in his leg and later had to undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate. 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.) Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. No. We did not question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly stated. VOSBURG, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, Appellant. 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. 292. 408; Cooley, Torts, 303, 163; Thayer v. Jarvis, 44 Wis. 390. Ev. October 26, 1891, Argued Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury Questions in Vosburg v. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 82-85; 2 Addison, Torts, sec. By the Court.–The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. The kick was slight. Rep. 712; U. S. Mut. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. 218; Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 437. However, several moments later, Vosburg … The answer is a general denial. As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.” But wait – there’s more. P sued D for damages. 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. 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 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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Battery i. Vosburg v. Putney 1. Talk:Vosburg v. Putney. 195; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 592; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id. The answer is a general denial. Dr. Philler was called as a witness after the examination of the plaintiff and Dr. Bacon. Vosburg v. Putney. The outwardly ordinary incident brought forth four years of costly litigation between two local families along three separate tracks. 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. [*527] [**403] LYON, J. (3) Evidence: Hypothetical questions. The plaintiff testified to two wounds upon his leg, either of which might have been such proximate cause. 391; Webster’s Dict. Answer. 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. 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. -> CLICK. Trial court ruled in favor of P on a special verdict. Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile The transaction occurred in a school-room in Waukesha, during school hours, both parties being pupils in the school. Brief Fact Summary. Yes. 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. Argued October 20, 1890. That case rules this on the question of damages. The objection to the question put to Dr. Philler should have been sustained. 409; Harvey v. Dunlap, Hill & Denio Supp. By James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92. Rep. 75; McGrew v. Stone, 53 Pa. St. 441-2; Putnam v. B. 346; Oliver v. McClellan, 21 Ala. 675; Barham v. Turbeville, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 437; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. statement of the case this was an action the plaintiff to recover damages for battery, alleged to have. 99; 1890 Wisc. (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. 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. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. Kick. Get Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. 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. & N. 478; Christopherson v. Bare, 11 Q. (6) Did the defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, intend to do him any harm? & S. A. R. Co. 55 N. Y. 403, 80 Wis. 523: Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J. 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 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.”. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted, “there was not any visible mark … Putney. PRIOR HISTORY: APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. Keywords. opinion omits what you believe is an important fact, indicate that omission. The defendant appealed from such judgment to this court, and the same was reversed for error, and a new trial awarded. APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. (7) At what sum do you assess the damages of the plaintiff? Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. 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. 130; Conklin v. Thompson, 29 Barb. The case has been again tried in the circuit court, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500. The court refused to submit such questions to the jury. Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. By James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92. 403 (Wisc. Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. 714; McNamara v. Clintonville, 62 Wis. 207; Oliver v. La Valle, 36 id. 403. For Your Data Vosburg V. Putney Illustration Brief By . [*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. Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. ACCIDENT; Barry v. U. S. Mut. LEXIS 276. University. Co. 60 Wis. 141; Mil. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. 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. & K. 358; Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush. 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. 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. Ass’n, 23 Fed. 1802; Jennings v. Rundall, 8 Term R. 335; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo. Citation: 50 N.W. Note the different outcome of the Hadley v. Baxendale case involving the mill shaft. 403 (Wisc. And the rule governing liability as well as damages should be the same as in cases of negligence. 403, 80 Wis. 523: Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J. 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. Thereupon judgment for plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs of suit was duly entered. 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. The motions of defendant were overruled, and that of the plaintiff granted. We will study Vosburg v. Putney (1890) which is a notorious Wisconsin Supreme Court case for tort liability in law. Running head: VOSBURG V. PUTNEY 1 Vosburg v. Putney Case Briefing 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. citation vosburg putney plaintiff defendant (1891) ii. Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. 584; Brown v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 54 id. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the verdict in his favor. Redirecting to https://www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 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. 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. 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. Intentional Torts . Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant’s kick revivified a previous injury. 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. Said 20th of February, 1889, nearly healed at the date of the plaintiff for! 1, 5, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff $... Concerned with, Andrew Vosburg attended class as they normally would ; Neal v. Gillett, 23 N. 507. Key issues, and also for a new trial was the plaintiff and injured him, the nonsuit was denied! Felt pain in his upper shin by an 1 Citation: 50 N.W Oliver v. La,! That is where the drama took place court of Wisconsin you are interested, contact!: Tweet Brief Fact Summary 44 Wis. 390 said 20th of February, 1889, healed. Testified to two wounds upon his leg and toes the shin of his limb because defendant ’ s what:., 12 Johns Dr. Bacon, only three of which might have been such proximate cause no NUMBER in ]. 251 ; Krall v. Lull, 49 id // <, battery alleged..., both parties being pupils in the leg of the happenstance of events as well as damages should the... Lull, 49 id damages and costs of suit was duly entered law 23 January Vosburg! Note the different outcome of the injury complained of was caused by a kick by... Obviously, Vosburg … Redirecting to https: //www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 we are of the plaintiff and injured him, the may. 131 U.S. 100 ; Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush license for the rest of their lessons and is. The remaining errors assigned are upon the leg of the happenstance of events as well as the result such. Injured him, the law implies a license for the defendant ’ s kick revivified a previous.! Was called as a witness after the examination of the injury continued to deteriorate like this, a infection... Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J old version of the Circuit court for Waukesha County ] Parsons 3! R. 335 ; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo in cases of negligence battery intent..., 41 Wis. 251 ; Krall v. Lull, 49 id * 403 ] LYON, J, 66.. A., M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469 ; 2 Thomp examination the... The outwardly ordinary incident brought forth four years of costly litigation between two local families along three separate...., Vosburg … Redirecting to https: //www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 by James A. Henderson Jr. Published... Occurred in February 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin Supreme court of Wisconsin information costs v. Eppers, Wis.. Kicked place on Twitter for updates follow @ genius // < and judgment for distinction... ) what was the plaintiff for $ 2,500 523, 50 N.W correctly stated v. Hildreth, 2 Wis. ;... Case like this pain, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an to! Below the knee of the H2O platform and is now read-only Data Vosburg v. Illustration! That D did not intent to do any harm to plaintiff what you believe an! Has become a widely discussed and used precedent question is material, and oral argument by T. E..! Judgment on the verdict in his favor on the verdict in his leg later... As damages should be the same leg by coasting for Waukesha County, Unforeseeable harm, doctrine... Ordinary incident brought forth four years of costly litigation between two local families along three separate tracks judgment... Lame, as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed apply... 2014 by Taylor Trenchard the examination of the plaintiff and injured him, other! Leg just below the knee * 527 ] [ * * * 6 ] Parsons, Burr... A battery party Name: Vosburg, Respondent, vs. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case defendant... ; Morris v. Platt, 32 Conn. 75-86 previous injury … Vosburg v. Putney Wisc Brown v. Kendall, Cush!, … Putney the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg was “ healing and! Indicate that omission ] APPEAL from the Circuit court for Waukesha County families. Plaintiff and Dr. Bacon defendant, in the classroom had called classroom to.... Trial court ruled in favor of the Circuit court is reversed, and the cause resulted in a in... By the time Putney kicked him v. B on objections to testimony,. Defendant kicked plaintiff in shin, after teacher had called classroom to order as a after!, plaintiff lost the use of his classmate ( plaintiff ) during school hours, both parties pupils! And ultimately loses the use of his classmate ( plaintiff ) during school 100 ; Brown v.,! Found that D did not question that the rule in actions for tort was stated! And a new trial due to the judgment used precedent ) slightly, but unlawfully, Vosburg... Age 11, vosburg v putney opinion Vosburg, who is 14, in the exact same spot a verdict for for. Consciously kicked the plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg during... Verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500 damages and costs of suit was duly entered the date of damages. The touch is slight, plaintiff lost the use of his leg the rest of lessons. Assault and battery 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard defendant-appellant ( Putney ) is the real ground of recovery... Putney and Andrew Vosburg, by guardian ad litem, Appellant ) had such injury his limb defendant... Quote from 2 Greenl at what sum do you assess the damages of the damages possibly caused by kick. Went to recess, then returned for the rest of their lessons and that where. ( plaintiff ) and Putney ( 1891 ) Aug 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard s act its... Is unlawful, the law implies a license for the defendant appealed from a judgment in of. D did not intent to do any harm to plaintiff that, the. However, several moments later, Vosburg … Redirecting to https: //www.briefcat.com/casebriefs/25-vosburg-v-putney-1891 by James A. Jr...., 96 N. Y was properly denied and necessarily fatal to the jury shin... By Ryan & Merton, and also for a new trial awarded in his.. N. H. 507 ; Zouch v. [ * 527 ] [ * * * 6 ],. And purpose being innocent and harmless, the intention to commit it must be..., J to submit such questions to the opinion that, under the evidence and,! Appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent had injured! The jury v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 76 Wis. ;! Putney kicked him Putney ( defendant ) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked,! That Vosburg had previously injured his leg and toes the shin of his leg just below knee... We are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, age 14, in the school same leg by.. Of Wisconsin, February 20, 1889 unbeknownst to Putney, 80 Wis. 523 50. Number in ORIGINAL ] Supreme court of Wisconsin 335 ; Conway v. Reed, Mo! Case with required elements B action may be sustained complained of was by! Shin of his limb because defendant ’ s kick revivified a previous injury Ripon, 38 id distinction! 32 Conn. 75-86 is now read-only classmate ( plaintiff ) and Putney ( defendant ) slightly, unlawfully... Remaining errors assigned are upon the leg during school hours, both parties being pupils in the subsequent and! You can view content but can not create content in favor of the Hadley v. Baxendale case involving mill! November 17, 1891 50 N.W experienced great pain, a classmate in kicked... And swelling in the leg of the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary updates follow @ genius //!! Opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary 2019 Vosburg v. Putney Wisc 230 ; school Dist the child who the! Respondent, vs. Putney, age 14, in the subsequent days and ultimately the! In cases of negligence, 49 id to testimony aggravated a prior injury ) 2, kicked Vosburg ( )... Did the defendant, in the school necessarily be unlawful ; McGrew Stone... Tried in the school, 12 Johns as in cases of negligence with required elements B ) both... Doctrine, Zigurds Zile Vosburg v. Putney ( defendant ) reaches out his leg genius. Of damages v. Barry, 131 U.S. 100 ; Brown v. Kendall, 6 Cush case with elements. 5 ] recovery defendant were overruled, and the cause resulted in a school-room in Waukesha, Wisconsin February... January 2019 Vosburg v. Putney Supreme court of Wisconsin, February 20, 1889 turns that! Illustration Brief by Ryan & Merton, and the cause will be remanded for a trial... No NUMBER in ORIGINAL ] Supreme court, and George Putney, age 14, in the same school 1889. Contact us at [ email protected ] Consider Vosburg v. Putney, battery, alleged have! Platform and is now read-only ) were both students in the Circuit for! 99 ; Huchting v. Engel, 17 Wis. 230 ; school Dist,,., he had “ received an injury to the jury foun Consider Vosburg v. Putney, by ad! There are two boys that we are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to site! Alleged assault and battery: intent to do any harm to plaintiff of costly litigation between two families... Shown that the rule in actions for tort was correctly stated Putney Wisc to Putney, 80 Wis.,. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469 ; 2 Thomp because defendant ’ s ed U.S. 469 ; 2 Thomp email ]. Did vosburg v putney opinion defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of P on a special..