Skip to content

TortsIntentional torts

Vosburg v. Putney

Wisconsin Supreme Court · Decided November 17, 1891 · Core case

Full citation

Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891).

Quote pages are pages of 80 Wis. 523, the official report, so quotes and pinpoints cite it; for 50 N.W. 403, find the page in that reporter.

VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.

Vosburg

injured schoolboyrespondent

Putney

schoolboy who kicked himappellant

The parties: Vosburg v. Putney.

Brief

Facts

Vosburg, the plaintiff, and Putney, the defendant, were at the same school. On February 20th, after the teacher had called the school to order and the regular exercises had begun, Putney stood in the aisle by his seat and kicked across the aisle. The kick hit Vosburg on the shin-bone. The teacher, Miss More, saw it happen. The jury found that Putney did not intend to do Vosburg any harm. Vosburg's leg was injured. He testified that he had also received a wound near the same knee in January. Putney claimed the January wound was the real cause. He said it had produced a diseased condition of the bone that was already in active progress when the kick landed, and that the kick at most changed the location and perhaps hastened the disease. Dr. Bacon, Vosburg's attending physician, first saw the leg on February 25th, and his testimony tended to some extent to support Putney's claim. Dr. Philler, another witness for Vosburg, first saw it March 8th. At trial Dr. Philler was asked what caused the inflammation he saw. He answered that the cause was the kick on the shin-bone.

Issues

  1. If a defendant kicks the plaintiff in school after the teacher has called the school to order, but does not intend to harm him, can the plaintiff recover for assault and battery?
  2. May an expert witness be asked for an opinion on the cause of an injury through a hypothetical question that leaves out a material fact already proved, namely a second wound that could also have caused the injury?
  3. Is a wrongdoer liable only for the damages he could reasonably have foreseen, or for all injuries resulting directly from his wrongful act?

Holding

The kick, delivered after the school was called to order, was an unlawful act because no implied license covered it and it violated the order and decorum of the school, so the lack of intent to harm did not defeat the action. The judgment was still reversed because the expert's hypothetical question left out a material fact. Damages were properly not limited to what Putney could foresee.

The rest of this brief is for subscribers

Every plan includes the procedural history, the rule and the reasoning, the IRAC and CREAC versions, every key quote with its pinpoint, the citation box with parallel citations and short forms and the exam angle.

Learn the citation form

Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.

The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/vosburg-v-putney