Vosburg v. Putney

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1891 · Torts

Tortsbatteryintenteggshell plaintiffbatteryunlawful intentschoolroom contactimplied license

Facts

While school was in session after the teacher had called the class to order and regular exercises had begun, the defendant touched or kicked the plaintiff with his foot. The jury found that the defendant did not intend to do the plaintiff any harm. The plaintiff had also suffered an earlier wound near the same knee in January, and the defendant argued that this earlier wound, rather than the kick, was the proximate cause of the leg condition. At trial, a medical expert for the plaintiff was asked a hypothetical question that assumed the kick but omitted the earlier wound.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff could maintain an action for battery when the defendant intended the contact but did not intend to cause harm, and whether the defendant was liable for the full resulting injury if the contact was unlawful. The court also considered whether the expert testimony was improperly admitted because the hypothetical question omitted a material fact already in evidence.

Rule

In an action for assault and battery, the plaintiff must show either that the intention was unlawful or that the defendant was at fault. If the intended act is unlawful, the intent to commit it is necessarily unlawful. In tort, the wrongdoer is liable for all injuries directly resulting from the wrongful act, whether or not those injuries could have been foreseen. A hypothetical question to an expert may not exclude material proved facts essential to an intelligent opinion on a vital issue.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a middle school in Milwaukee, after the teacher called the class to order and students had begun a quiz, Owen Pike leaned across the aisle and tapped Leo Marsh on the calf with a ruler as a joke. Owen meant only to make contact, not to hurt Leo, but Leo suffered a serious leg injury directly after the contact.

Under the majority rule, is Owen liable for battery?

Explanation. The majority states that in battery the plaintiff must show either unlawful intention or fault, and if the intended act is unlawful, the intent to commit it is necessarily unlawful. In a classroom after order has been called and exercises begun, there is no implied license for such contact. Once the act is wrongful, the defendant is liable for injuries directly resulting from it, even if no harm was intended.