Vosburg v. Putney 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.
tl;dr: A boy lightly kicks a classmate in a schoolroom, unexpectedly aggravating a prior injury and causing severe harm. The court held the kicker liable for battery, finding the act unlawful in context, and responsible for all resulting damages, regardless of their foreseeability.
Legal Significance: This case establishes the “eggshell skull” rule in torts: a wrongdoer is liable for all damages directly caused by their act, even if the extent of harm was unforeseeable. It also clarifies that for battery, intent to harm is not required if the contact itself is unlawful.
Vosburg v. Putney 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
The plaintiff, Andrew Vosburg (age 14), and defendant, George Putney (age 12), were students in a classroom. After the teacher had called the class to order, Putney lightly kicked Vosburg on the shin from across the aisle. Vosburg did not feel the kick at the moment, but soon after experienced severe pain. Unbeknownst to Putney, Vosburg had a pre-existing, latent injury in the same leg. The kick aggravated this condition, causing a serious infection that led to multiple surgeries and permanent impairment. At trial, the jury returned a special verdict finding that Putney did not intend to do any harm to Vosburg. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff for $2,500. The defendant appealed, arguing that without an intent to harm, there could be no liability for battery, and that the extensive damages were not a foreseeable result of his act.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a defendant be held liable for battery for an intentional contact that causes extensive and unforeseeable harm, when the defendant did not intend to cause harm but the contact itself was unlawful under the circumstances?
Yes. The court affirmed the legal principles supporting liability but reversed and 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
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
Can a defendant be held liable for battery for an intentional contact that causes extensive and unforeseeable harm, when the defendant did not intend to cause harm but the contact itself was unlawful under the circumstances?
Conclusion
Vosburg v. Putney is a foundational case in American tort law, cementing 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 exercitat
Legal Rule
For the tort of battery, a plaintiff must show either that the 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 d
Legal Analysis
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's analysis centered on two key tort principles: the 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 dol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- For battery, intent to cause harm is not required; intent to