This was the first case I read in law school. In fact, it was my orientation assignment. I am here to help break down this infamous and complicated case.
Class is in session in Wisconsin. It is not even 1900 yet. Two boys, Andrew Vosburg and George Putney, sat across the classroom aisle from each other. Putney the Problem Starter, reached across with his foot and tapped Vosburg the Victim’s shin. Vosburg cried out in agony and fell ill shortly thereafter. He experienced discoloration of the leg and vomiting. Through a series of surgeries, doctors discovered that Vosburg had an infection to the bone and lost the ability to use the limb. It turns out that Vosburg also had a preexisting sledding injury to the same shin that was apparently in the process of healing. Talk about unlucky timing. Vosburg sued Putney on a battery claim.
This case teaches us about a few different legal issues, I am going to focus on intent and then move to damages:
The elements of battery are an intention to commit an act, non-consensual or offensive contact and harm caused by such contact. The Court said that the battery claim required a plaintiff to prove that the defendant's intention was unlawful or that the defendant was at fault. The Court further reasoned that if an act was unlawful, then the intent to execute that act is unlawful as well. Applied here, the tap was unlawful because class was in session. The court looked objectively (yes, I am talking about what will eventually be called the reasonable person standard) at what behavior is deemed proper in a classroom setting and concluded that Putney’s intentional tap to Vosburg’s shin was inappropriate. Thus, because his act was wrong, Putney’s intention to tap Vosburg was also unlawful and the first element of battery, intent, is satisfied. Keep in mind that this conclusion probably would have been different if this occurred on the playground. Horseplay is expected at recess.
On to damages. Should Putney be liable for everything that happened to Vosburg's leg after the tap even though most of it is likely attributable to Vosburg’s previous sledding injury? The Court thought so. Defendants take their victims as they come. Therefore, defendants are liable for all injuries resulting from their unlawful actions even if they were not foreseeable. This is colloquially referred to as the “eggshell skull” rule.
Here are some points to include in your outline:
· Elements of battery (listed above)
· The eggshell skull rule and the ways it can apply in other contexts
· Think of ways that alternative facts could shake up the court’s conclusion. For example, what if this happened on the playground? What if class had not been in session yet?
· The concept of the implied license: Other than on a playground, when would an intentional tort like this be permitted? How about at a soccer game, when pushing to make the subway or while taking a boxing class? What about in the parking lot of the boxing studio after the class ended?
Comments