Connection lost
Server error
LAMBERTSON v. UNITED STATES Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A government employee’s horseplay, intended as a joke, caused serious injury. The court ruled the act was a battery, not negligence, because the employee intended the contact, barring the lawsuit against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that for battery, the requisite intent is merely the intent to make contact, not the intent to cause harm. A plaintiff cannot re-characterize an intentional tort as negligence to circumvent statutory exceptions like those in the Federal Tort Claims Act.
LAMBERTSON v. UNITED STATES Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
William Boslet, a federal meat inspector, engaged in horseplay with the plaintiff, Lambertson, an employee at a meat packing plant. Without warning, Boslet jumped on Lambertson’s back, pulled his hat over his eyes, and began riding him “piggyback.” This action caused Lambertson to fall forward and strike his face on meat hooks, resulting in severe injuries to his mouth and teeth. It was undisputed that Boslet did not intend to cause injury; he apologized immediately, stating he was only playing. Lambertson sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), framing his claim as one of negligence. The government moved to dismiss, arguing the claim arose from a battery, an intentional tort for which the FTCA preserves sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an intentional, unconsented-to physical contact, intended as a joke without malice or intent to injure, constitute a battery, thereby precluding a claim against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s intentional tort exception?
Yes. The employee’s conduct constituted a battery because he intended to make Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo co
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an intentional, unconsented-to physical contact, intended as a joke without malice or intent to injure, constitute a battery, thereby precluding a claim against the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s intentional tort exception?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent illustrating that the intent for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitati
Legal Rule
Under the common law of torts, the intent required for a battery Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris n
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis focused on the substance of the claim rather than Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, s
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A claim for injury caused by a federal employee’s horseplay is