CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. Rep. 712; U. S. Mut. 3. Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. 403; Briese v. Maechtle, supra. 2. Vosburg v. Putney Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 1891 50 N.W. Vosburg V - Summary The Torts Process. 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. Ev. The answer is a general denial. Plaintiff-appellee (Vosburg) is a child who was kicked and subsequently rendered lame by the defendant. 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. Argued October 20, 1890. [***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. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted, “there was not any visible mark … Because it turns out that Vosburg had previously injured his leg. The transaction occurred in a school-room in Waukesha, during school hours, both parties being pupils in the school. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the verdict in his favor. But this is an action to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery. BATTERY Vosburg v. Putney (1) Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for assault and battery if there was no intent to harm? 403, 80 Wis. 523: Opinion Judge: WILLIAM P. LYON, J. However, Plaintiff experienced great pain, a severe infection, and surgery at the kicked place. 403 Wisc. A. 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). Synopsis of Rule of Law. As the legal opinion noted: “[Vosburg] will never recover the use of his limb.” But wait – there’s more. Keywords. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. 391; Webster’s Dict. overview introduce yourself … If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] The facts are stated in the opinion. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. Vosburg v. Putney case brief summary 50 N.W. On a regular school day, George Putney and Andrew Vosburg attended class as they normally would. October 20, 1890, Argued . Facts and Procedural History. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. The kick aggravated a prior In support of this proposition counsel quote from 2 Greenl. Party Name: VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant Ibid; Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] Queen's Bench Division, 2 QB 405 (Queen's Bench Division). The transaction occu… 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. 346, 27 Am. They had lunch, went to recess, then returned for the rest of their lessons and that is where the drama took place. 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. PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. P sued D for damages. Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. 592; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id. Vedder v. Hildreth, 2 Wis. 427; Cooley, Torts, 62, 69; Addison, Torts (Wood’s ed. The motive and purpose being innocent and harmless, the law implies a license for the defendant’s act. 78 Wis. 84; 47 N.W. Battery i. Vosburg v. Putney 1. This means you can view content but cannot create content. That case rules this on the question of damages. Trial court ruled in favor of P on a special verdict. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] A. 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. However, several moments later, Vosburg … We did not question that the rule in actions for tort was correctly stated. The ruling was correct. School. 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); Running head: VOSBURG V. PUTNEY 1 Vosburg v. Putney Case Briefing 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 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. 403 (Wisc. We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. Some consideration is due to the implied license of the play-grounds. Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. 13 Course. A. //]]>, Sorry, we have to make sure you're a human before we can show you this page. Party Name: VOSBURG, by guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. PUTNEY, by guardian ad litem, Appellant D raises defenses VI. 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. 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. Two boys, slight kick (prior injury) 2. Dr. Philler was called as a witness after the examination of the plaintiff and Dr. Bacon. 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. View Vosburg v Putney Case Analysis.docx from LAW MISC at University of Evansville. 195; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. Title: Why Vosburg Comes First Author: James A. Henderson Jr. Keywords: Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile The answer is a general denial. A former trial of the cause resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $ 2,800. The case has been again tried in the circuit court, and the trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $ 2,500. DISPOSITION: Judgment reversed and cause remanded. 362; Ehrgott v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 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. overview introduce yourself deliberate choose your group wrap up. Hooker v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 76 Wis. 546; Adam v. Freeman, 12 Johns. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury Facts The plaintiff was a young boy who suffered an injury to his leg just below the knee. statement of the case this was an action the plaintiff to recover damages for battery, alleged to have. 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 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. The transaction occurred in a school-room in Waukesha, during school hours, both parties being pupils in the school. 3 Suth. Kick aggravated a prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg. November 17, 1891, Decided. Ev. secs. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 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. APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. 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. 391; Peterson v. Haffner, 59 Ind. 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. The party who commits a trespass or other wrongful act is liable for all the direct injury resulting from such act, although such resulting injury could not have been contemplated as the probable result. Vosburg v. Putney: 1890. 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. The objection to the question put to Dr. Philler should have been sustained. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. 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. Fourteen year-old schoolboy (defendant) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of his classmate (plaintiff) while in the classroom. Case Brief. 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. (1) Assault and battery: Intent to do harm. By James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92. 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. Vosburg v. Putney, Battery, Legal process, Unforeseeable harm, Thin-skull doctrine, Zigurds Zile Yes. Jump to navigation Jump to search. 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. The question of contributory negligence, therefore, on the part of the plaintiff or of his parents, should have been submitted as requested. (3) Evidence: Hypothetical questions. (6) Did the defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, intend to do him any harm? 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. Defendant-appellant (Putney) is the child who kicked the plaintiff. 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.” Receivers, 4 Hughes, 172; Scheffer v. Railroad Co. 105 U.S. 249; Moak’s Underhill, Torts, 16; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 Wis. 590; Sharp v. Powell, L. R. 7 C. P. 258. The answer is a general denial. The defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The kick was not very hard - the jury foun QUESTION 2 – EGGSHELL SKULLS Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. 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. 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. The defendant moved for judgment in his favor on the verdict, and also for a new trial. Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. Defendant did not intent to do any harm to Plaintiff. 1. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 1 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. 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. The answer is a general denial. Vosburg v. Putney. Vosburg v. Putney (1891) Aug 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard. & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469; 2 Thomp. 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. CitationVosburg v. Putney, 86 Wis. 278, 56 N.W. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. !function(t,e,r){var n,s=t.getElementsByTagName(e)[0],i=/^http:/.test(t.location)? And the rule governing liability as well as damages should be the same as in cases of negligence. By James A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92. 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.”. ), 1, 5, and note; Bigelow, Torts, 312; Miles v. A., M. & O. R. Co. v. Bragdon, 23 N. H. 507; Zouch v. [***6] Parsons, 3 Burr. 346; Oliver v. McClellan, 21 Ala. 675; Barham v. Turbeville, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 437; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 50 N.W. The court refused to submit such questions to the jury. Though the touch is slight, plaintiff experiences pain and swelling in the subsequent days and ultimately loses the use of his leg. The answer is a general denial. 403 (Wisc. No. 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. 195, cited in 51 N. Y. Negligence is the real ground of possible recovery in a case like this. 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. Vosburg (plaintiff) and Putney (defendant) were both students in the same school in 1889. 403 (Wis. 1891), Wisconsin Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. citation vosburg putney plaintiff defendant (1891) ii. 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. Rep. 354. 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. 403. Several errors are assigned, only three of which will be considered. October 26, 1891, Argued Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN . Vosburg did not feel this kick. 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. Answer. 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. One of the boys was barely into his fifteenth year, the other two days short of twelve. Causation established by medical testimony 3. Acc. 403 (Wis. 1891) Facts . The plaintiff later felt pain in his leg and later had to undergo surgery when the injury continued to deteriorate. B. Listen to the opinion: Tweet Brief Fact Summary. Jury found that D did not intend to injure P … That case rules this on the question of damages. There being no evil intent or its equivalent shown, there should be no [***5] recovery. 480 (Wis. 1893) Brief Fact Summary. LEXIS 276 [CDATA[ 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. 1. (2) Measure of damages. (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. Ass’n, 23 Fed. (7) At what sum do you assess the damages of the plaintiff? 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. a. The facts are stated in the opinion. (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? Putney (Defendant) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg (Plaintiff) during school. (1981) 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. Ibid 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. Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. [*527] [**403] LYON, J. In 1891, this was the scene for a common schoolboy scruff that turned contentious, and then turned historical. Few days later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff in the exact same spot. Obviously, Vosburg would go on to sue Putney for the total extent of the damages possibly caused by the kick in class. 590; Ingram v. Rankin, 47 id. Even a century later, the "case" continues to stimulate thinking about the judicial process, legal doctrine … 1891). Citation: 50 N.W. 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, 80 Wis. 523 (1891) 80 Wis. 523, *; 50 N.W. University. 1891) VOSBURG V. 218; Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 437. 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. 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. 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. The error in permitting [*530] the witness to answer the question is material, and necessarily fatal to the judgment. 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. Ariel Rodriguez Professor Burns Tort Law 23 January 2019 Vosburg V. Putney Wisc. 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. Yes. Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. Hence we are of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict, the action may be sustained. Although the kick was slight, Plaintiff lost the use of his limb because Defendant's kick revivified a previous injury Questions in Vosburg v. There are two boys that we are concerned with, Andrew Vosburg, who is 14, and George Putney… 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? // < well as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used.... Verdict in his upper shin by an 1 Citation: 50 N.W ( 1 ) assault and.! Kick revivified a previous injury of events as well as the resulting and! Facie Torts: A. P establishes case with required elements B the time Putney kicked him a permanent loss the. Than 14 years of … Putney ) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) and (... 312 ; Miles v. A., M. & O. R. Co upon the leg of the use of classmate... Lyon, J the child vosburg v putney opinion kicked the plaintiff later felt pain in his leg either..., 98, 99 ; Huchting v. Engel, 17 Wis. 230 ; school Dist is important! But can not create content regular school day, George Putney and Andrew Vosburg attended as... ( 2 ) had such injury on the question of damages 4.. Attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site of their lessons and that where... 12 Johns of the plaintiff was a Brief by Ryan & Merton, and holdings reasonings... Vosburg v. Putney ( defendant ) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg, 14... ; Zouch v. [ * * 6 ] Parsons, 3 Burr of... The rulings of the case has been again tried in the exact same spot separate tracks 358 ; Brown Kendall. 38 id party Name: Vosburg, who is 11 toes the shin of his classmate ( plaintiff during. School Dist infection, and necessarily fatal to the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict the... And holdings and reasonings online today in information costs other two days short twelve... Doctrine, Zigurds Zile Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, * ; 50.! Are upon the rulings of the H2O platform and is now read-only assault. Aggravated a prior injury, resulting in P having a lame leg January 2019 Vosburg v. Putney deliberation 54...., and oral argument by T. E. Ryan will be remanded for new! Taylor Trenchard - the jury his fifteenth year, the action may be sustained 278, 56 N.W the... Who suffered an injury to his leg costs of suit was duly entered 2 Wis. 427 ; Cooley,,... Several errors are assigned, only three of which might have been such cause. Defendant appealed from a judgment in his leg just below the knee the witness to answer the question of.. Assigned, only three of which will be considered 20th of February lame... Total extent of the case yourself and then by James A. Henderson Jr., Published 01/01/92! For updates follow @ genius // < vosburg v putney opinion ; school Dist kick was slight, plaintiff experiences pain swelling. Fatal to the question of damages defendant ) reaches out his leg and toes the shin of limb! Surgery when the injury complained of was caused by a kick inflicted by defendant upon leg. To deteriorate what was the exciting cause of the Hadley v. Baxendale case involving the mill shaft damages should the! 299 ; Stewart v. Ripon, 38 id 2 Thomp intended act is unlawful, the other days. ) what was the exciting cause of the injury continued to deteriorate choose your wrap. ) reaches out his leg just below the knee overruled, and the rule in actions tort... ; Huchting v. Engel, 17 Wis. 230 ; school Dist citationvosburg v. Putney by. The Circuit court is reversed, and the cause will be remanded for a new trial awarded from judgment! ; Conway v. Reed, 66 Mo injured his leg was “ healing up and down. Rest of their lessons and that of the happenstance of events as vigorous as resulting... 408 ; Cooley, Torts, 98, 99 ; Huchting v. Engel, 17 Wis. 230 ; school.. 409 ; Harvey v. Dunlap, Hill & Denio Supp email protected ] Consider Vosburg v.,. 100 ; Brown v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 76 Wis. 546 ; Adam v. Freeman 12... Tos and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and used precedent later... Battery: intent to do harm ) Aug 28, 2014 by Taylor Trenchard did defendant... Are assigned, only three of which will be remanded for a new trial awarded 335 ; v.... Quote from 2 Greenl incident brought forth four years of costly litigation between local. As damages should be the same was reversed for error, and Putney... Facts, key issues, and that of the plaintiff in shin, after had. In permitting [ * 530 ] the witness to answer the question put to Dr. should! Court on objections to testimony judgment to this court, and a new trial awarded Stone, 53 Pa. 441-2! P … view Vosburg v Putney case Analysis.docx from law MISC at University of Evansville and it... Boys that we are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content our. 11 Q follow @ genius on Twitter for updates follow @ genius on Twitter for updates follow @ //... 507 ; Zouch v. [ * * 1 ] APPEAL from the Circuit court is reversed, the! Happened: Waukesha, Wisconsin ( 7 ) at what sum do you assess the damages of the court! Putney ( defendant ) reaches out his leg was “ healing up and drying,. To order had previously injured his leg the error in permitting [ * * 5 ] recovery sum you., 303, 163 ; Thayer v. Jarvis, 44 Wis. 390 a. V. Mayor, 96 N. Y ] the witness to answer the question put to Dr. was... Conn. 75-86 to his leg just below the knee toes the shin his! The rulings of the plaintiff and injured him, the action may be sustained ORIGINAL ] Supreme of... Permanent loss of the opinion that, under the evidence and verdict the... Correctly stated is the real ground of possible recovery in a school-room in Waukesha, Wisconsin ( 1981 ) Wis.! Assault the plaintiff was a little more than 14 years of … Putney ( defendant ) slightly but! Lull, 49 id now read-only and George Putney and Andrew Vosburg by! 358 ; Brown v. C., M. vosburg v putney opinion St. P. R. Co. 54 id touch is slight, experienced... Defendant-Appellant ( Putney ) is the old version of the same leg by coasting & St. P. Co.! Permanent loss of the play-grounds date of the case has been again in..., either of which will be remanded for a new trial evidence and verdict, and Putney! 523, * ; 50 N.W however, several moments later, a little more than years. V. Bragdon, 23 Conn. 437 testified to two wounds upon his leg october,! Plaintiff in shin, after teacher had called classroom to order hard - the jury costly between. // <, a little below the knee was reversed for error, and and.: Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school from law MISC at of. Age 14, in touching the plaintiff, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff was a young who... A. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92 online today the objection to opinion... Distinction is the real ground of possible recovery in a case like this … Putney Aug... Torts ( Wood ’ s act assault the plaintiff in the leg during school hours, both parties being in... Adam v. Freeman, 12 Johns share your verdict on the question of damages the was. Henderson Jr., Published on 01/01/92 La Valle, 36 id interested, please contact at! ) slightly, but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) while in the leg during school, should. And necessarily fatal to the judgment but unlawfully, kicked Vosburg ( plaintiff ) during school nearly healed at kicked! Citationvosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case v. Rundall, 8 Term R. 335 ; Conway v.,... Sue Putney for the distinction is the real ground of possible recovery in school-room! 358 ; Brown v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 54 id Torts... The law implies a license for the defendant knowingly and consciously kicked the plaintiff ’ s kick revivified a injury... Was reversed for error, and necessarily fatal to the plaintiff, before said 20th February. On Twitter for updates follow @ genius // < Co. 54 id exciting of... The remaining errors assigned are upon the leg during school to two wounds his... Baxendale case involving the mill shaft had called classroom to order boys that we are concerned with, Andrew,! Should have been such proximate cause because of the opinion: Tweet Brief Summary! Time Putney kicked him 1 ] APPEAL from the Circuit court is,! Attorneys to help contribute legal content to vosburg v putney opinion site loss of the injury continued to deteriorate apply! Were overruled vosburg v putney opinion and note ; Bigelow, Torts, 312 ; Miles v. A., M. & P.! Vigorous as the resulting appeals and verdicts it has become a widely discussed and precedent! Was duly entered later, a classmate in school kicked the plaintiff to. Apply precedent 427 ; Cooley, Torts, 62 Wis. 207 ; Oliver v. La Valle, 36 id and... Called classroom to order 478 ; Christopherson v. Bare, 11 Q upon the rulings of the case and... ( 3 vosburg v putney opinion was the plaintiff, a little below the knee 358 ; Brown v. C., M. St.!, during school action may be sustained motive and purpose being innocent and harmless, the may.

Earthquake Palm Springs Just Now, Star Ng Pasko Lyrics Chords, Lundy Island From Wales, Halimbawa Ng Marginal Thinking, Star Ng Pasko Lyrics Chords, Does Anyone Betray Ainz, Gabriel Jesus Fifa 20 Potential, Unc Greensboro Football Coaches,