--- title: "Vosburg v. Putney" type: Landmark Case source: https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/vosburg-v-putney --- # Vosburg v. Putney Vosburg v. Putney is a foundational case in intentional torts, establishing that intent to make contact — not intent to cause harm — is sufficient for battery. It also introduced the eggshell plaintiff rule in the context of intentional torts, holding that a defendant is liable for all consequences of an unlawful act, even if unforeseeable. ## Citation 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891) ## Year 1891 ## Court Supreme Court of Wisconsin ## Facts In a classroom setting, a fourteen-year-old boy named Putney lightly kicked the shin of another boy named Vosburg. The kick itself was slight, but Vosburg had a pre-existing condition in his leg from an earlier injury. The minor kick aggravated the condition, ultimately causing serious infection and permanent disability, including loss of the use of the leg. ## Procedural History The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed on evidentiary grounds and remanded for a new trial, but affirmed the legal principles regarding intent and liability. ## Issue Whether a defendant who intends only a slight, harmless contact can be held liable for battery and for all resulting injuries, including unforeseeable consequences arising from the plaintiff's pre-existing condition. ## Holding The court held that because the kick occurred in a classroom where such conduct was unlawful (not impliedly consented to as it might be on a playground), the intent to make contact was sufficient to establish battery. The defendant was liable for all injuries flowing from the unlawful act, regardless of whether those injuries were foreseeable. ## Reasoning The court reasoned that the classroom setting was critical because it was a place of order where roughhousing was not impliedly consented to, unlike a playground. Since the contact was unlawful, the defendant was liable for all consequences that directly flowed from the battery, even though he did not intend to cause serious harm. The ruling applied the principle that a wrongdoer takes his victim as he finds him. The distinction between playground and classroom was essential to determining whether implied consent existed for the contact. ## Impact Vosburg became a foundational case taught in virtually every first-year torts course for its clear articulation of the intent element in battery and the eggshell plaintiff rule. It established that the intent required for battery is merely the intent to make contact, not the intent to cause harm. The case continues to shape how courts analyze the scope of liability for intentional torts. ## Key Quotes - The wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him. - The act of the defendant was unlawful, as it was a violation of the order and decorum of the school. ## Related Cases - garratt-v-dailey - brown-v-kendall - katko-v-briney - vincent-v-lake-erie-transportation ## Exam Relevance This case frequently appears on exams testing the intent element of battery. Professors will present fact patterns where a defendant intends only minor contact but causes serious injury, requiring students to analyze whether the intent to contact is sufficient and whether the eggshell plaintiff rule applies. ## Study Tips - Focus on the distinction between intent to cause harm and intent to make contact — only the latter is required for battery. - Understand why the classroom versus playground distinction matters for implied consent analysis. - Connect this case to the eggshell plaintiff rule and be prepared to explain how it applies in intentional tort versus negligence contexts. - Use this case to illustrate the policy rationale for holding intentional tortfeasors liable for all consequences of their unlawful acts. ## Doctrine Established Intent to Contact (Not Harm) Suffices for Battery / Eggshell Plaintiff Rule --- Source: [Vosburg v. Putney — CaseBriefly](https://casebriefly.com/landmark-cases/vosburg-v-putney)