LAMBERTSON v. UNITED STATES Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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.
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
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
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