⚖︎
AI-verified law

Law Student Workbench

Multiple AIs, cross-checked — every citation verified against real law.

✓ Every cited case verified against real law
Torts · Battery & the eggshell plaintiff · Case brief

Vosburg v. Putney

80 Wis. 523 · Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1891
✓ Found by name and briefed from the retrieved opinion.
A study aid, not legal advice. This brief was drafted by AI; what makes it different is that every case it cites is checked against real case law — read the opinion itself before relying on it.
✓ Reviewed by 2 AIs against the opinion — every field checked out.

Facts

During a classroom session, a schoolboy, Putney, lightly kicked another boy, Vosburg, in the shin. Unknown to Putney, Vosburg had a prior injury that made the contact far more harmful than an ordinary kick would have been. The kick allegedly aggravated the condition and led to serious medical consequences. The incident occurred after the class had been called to order, when students were expected to maintain decorum.

Accurate?

Issue

Is a defendant liable for all resulting harm when he intentionally makes an unlawful physical contact, even if he did not intend or foresee the severe injury that followed?

Accurate?

Rule

An intentional, unlawful touching constitutes a battery. When a battery is established, the actor is liable for the resulting injuries, including unexpectedly severe harm, even if the full extent of the harm was not intended or foreseeable.

Accurate?

Holding

Yes. Because the kick was an intentional and unlawful contact in the classroom setting, Putney was liable for the injuries that followed, notwithstanding that the serious consequences were not intended.

Accurate?

Reasoning

The court treated the central question as whether the contact was unlawful, not whether the defendant intended the precise injury. Once the classroom was in session, ordinary horseplay was not privileged, so the intentional kick counted as a battery. Under the principle that a wrongdoer takes the victim as found, liability extends to the full consequences of the unlawful touching. Thus the unexpected aggravation of Vosburg's condition did not limit recovery.

Accurate?

Significance

Vosburg v. Putney is a foundational American battery case for the propositions that intent to make unlawful contact is sufficient and that a defendant is liable for unforeseeable, unusually severe injuries caused by that contact. It is closely associated with the eggshell-plaintiff principle and helped shape modern intent doctrine in torts. Related authorities include Garratt v. Dailey, 46 Wn.2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955), on intent in battery, and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13, which reflects the modern formulation of battery.

Accurate?

Brief any case, with citations you can trust

Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.

Try Law Student Workbench →