Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523 (1891), is a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision that turned a schoolroom kick into one of the foundational cases of American tort law. It holds that a battery requires only the intent to make a contact that is unlawful under the circumstances, not any intent to cause injury, and that the person responsible is liable for the full extent of the resulting harm even when that harm was wildly disproportionate to the act. Both rules still govern intentional torts today.
What Happened Between the Two Boys
On February 20, 1889, fourteen-year-old Andrew Vosburg and eleven-year-old George Putney were sitting in a schoolroom in Waukesha, Wisconsin. The teacher had already called the class to order. Putney reached across and kicked Vosburg lightly on the shin.1OpenCasebook. Vosburg v. Putney
The kick looked harmless. What Putney didn’t know was that Vosburg had hurt the same leg in a coasting accident on January 1 of that year. The earlier wound sat just above the knee and had nearly healed by mid-February.2Open Casebook. Vosburg v. Putney Within days of the kick, Vosburg’s leg became severely inflamed. Surgery followed in early March. The bone itself began to deteriorate, and Vosburg never recovered the use of the leg.
What the Court Held
The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed a $2,500 judgment for Vosburg. It ruled that because the kick occurred in the classroom after school had been called to order, it was an unlawful act. No intention to injure was required. The intention to make the contact was enough, because the contact itself was wrongful under the circumstances.1OpenCasebook. Vosburg v. Putney
The court’s reasoning was compact: if the act was unlawful, the intent to commit the act was necessarily unlawful as well. Putney did not need to foresee a bone infection. He only needed to intend the kick.
Why the Classroom Setting Was Decisive
The court drew a sharp line between the classroom and the playground. On a playground, children constantly bump, push, and kick each other. The law treats that environment as carrying an implied license for a certain amount of physical contact, and a light kick during recess might not be actionable at all.3vLex United States. Vosburg v. Putney
A classroom in session is different. Once the teacher called the class to order, no implied license for physical contact existed. A kick under those conditions violated the order and decorum of the school, which made it, in the court’s phrase, “necessarily unlawful.”3vLex United States. Vosburg v. Putney The same kick during recess might have produced no liability. In the classroom it became a battery.
The Intent Rule for Battery
Putney almost certainly meant nothing more than a playful nudge. That did not save him. Vosburg v. Putney establishes that the intent required for battery is the intent to make the contact, not the intent to produce a particular injury. When the contact itself is wrongful, the actor is liable for whatever follows.
This is why the case appears so early in torts courses. It separates two ideas that non-lawyers usually blend together: meaning to do something and meaning to hurt someone. Battery only requires the first.
The Eggshell Skull Rule
The gap between the trivial kick and the catastrophic injury forced the court to address a second question. Putney argued that no reasonable person could have foreseen such extreme consequences from a light tap on the shin. The court rejected that argument, applying what lawyers now call the eggshell skull rule, or thin skull rule.
Under this doctrine, a person who commits a wrongful act takes the victim as they find them. A pre-existing condition that makes the victim unusually vulnerable is the wrongdoer’s problem.1OpenCasebook. Vosburg v. Putney Vosburg’s earlier leg injury is what allowed the bone infection to take hold, and Putney had no way of knowing about it. Because the kick was unlawful, Putney bore responsibility for everything that followed, including the permanent loss of the leg.
The rule places the risk of unforeseeable consequences on the person who acted wrongfully rather than the person who was harmed. Without it, plaintiffs with pre-existing vulnerabilities would go uncompensated for real injuries inflicted by others.
Damages and the Path to the Final Verdict
The case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court twice. The first trial produced a verdict for Vosburg that the court reversed, citing improper evidence and flawed jury instructions on damages. The court emphasized that only strict compensatory damages were appropriate and that the plaintiff’s family wealth was irrelevant to the calculation.4Harvard Law School. Vosburg v. Putney A second trial produced the $2,500 verdict that the court ultimately affirmed on the second appeal.1OpenCasebook. Vosburg v. Putney
Why the Case Still Matters
Vosburg v. Putney packs several first-year torts principles into one short set of facts:
- The intent required for battery is minimal. A plaintiff need not prove the defendant intended injury, only that the defendant intended a contact that was unlawful in context.
- Context decides lawfulness. The same physical act can be lawful on the playground and unlawful in the classroom, because implied consent varies with the setting.
- The eggshell skull rule makes a wrongdoer liable for the full extent of the harm caused, even when the injury is far worse than anyone could have predicted.
- Damages track the actual harm suffered, not what a reasonable person would have expected from the wrongful act.
More than a century later, courts still cite Vosburg v. Putney for these propositions. A light kick, a hidden vulnerability, and a Wisconsin schoolroom continue to shape how American law thinks about intent and about who pays when small wrongs produce large injuries.