Court: Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Judgment Date: 17 September 1891
Where Reported: 78 Wis. 84 (1890); 47 N.W. 99
Legal Issues in Vosburg v Putney
The case of Vosburg v Putney concerns the legal issues of battery and the extent of liability in tort law, particularly in the context of unintentional harm.
The primary legal issue in Vosburg v Putney was whether a defendant can be held liable for damages resulting from a seemingly harmless act that unintentionally causes significant injury to another person.
This case examined the application of the “eggshell skull” rule, which posits that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, meaning liability for unforeseeable injuries resulting from a minor act of battery.
Material Facts in Vosburg v Putney
In February 1871, in a schoolhouse in Waukesha, Wisconsin, George Putney, a student, lightly kicked Andrew Vosburg, another student, on the shin while they were in their classroom.
The kick seemed trivial and was not intended to cause harm. However, Andrew had previously injured the same leg, which had not fully healed.
Following the kick, the condition of Andrew’s leg deteriorated, leading to serious complications that required multiple surgeries.
Andrew’s family incurred significant medical expenses as a result of the injury and subsequent complications.
The Vosburg family filed a lawsuit against Putney, seeking damages for the injury caused to Andrew’s leg.
Judgment in Vosburg v Putney
The case went through several court hearings, with the final judgment being made by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
The court ruled in favour of Vosburg, holding Putney liable for the damages caused to Vosburg’s leg.
The court awarded Vosburg damages, emphasising that even a minor act of battery that causes unforeseen serious injuries can result in significant liability.
This judgment underscored the principle that individuals are responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if the outcomes are unexpectedly severe – see Haynes v Harwood (1935).
The Reason for the Decision in Vosburg v Putney
The court’s decision was grounded in the principle that a person is liable for all the consequences of their actions, even if the results are unforeseen, as long as the initial act was unlawful.
In this case, the kick, although seemingly innocuous, was considered an unlawful act of battery because it was unpermitted contact.
The court applied the “eggshell skull” rule, which states that the frailty, weakness, sensitivity, or condition of the injured person cannot be used as a defence against the severity of any injury caused.
The rationale was that allowing the defendant to escape liability for unforeseen consequences of their actions would undermine the protection of personal security and integrity that the law seeks to provide.
This principle ensures that victims receive full compensation for their injuries, promoting caution and responsibility in personal conduct.
Legal Principles in Vosburg v Putney
The Vosburg v Putney case is a landmark in tort law for establishing and reinforcing the legal principles surrounding battery and the liability for unintended consequences.
It highlights the doctrine that one must take their victim as they find them, emphasising that defendants cannot mitigate their liability based on the unpredictability of the injury’s severity.
This case solidifies the understanding that any unauthorised physical contact that results in harm, no matter how minor it appears, can lead to significant legal consequences and reinforces the need for individuals to act with caution and respect towards others’ bodily integrity.
Read case: Anns v Merton London Borough Council (1978)
