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 kicked a classmate in a schoolroom, unexpectedly causing severe injury due to a pre-existing condition. The court found the kicker liable for all resulting damages, regardless of his intent to harm or the unforeseeability of the injury’s severity.
Legal Significance: This case establishes the foundational “eggshell skull” rule in tort law: a wrongdoer takes their victim as they find them and is liable for all direct, albeit unforeseeable, consequences of their wrongful act.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Andrew Vosburg, and the defendant, George Putney, were students in a classroom. After the teacher had called the class to order, Putney reached across the aisle with his foot and made light contact with Vosburg’s shin. The jury found that Putney did not intend to harm Vosburg. Unbeknownst to Putney, Vosburg had a prior injury to the same leg. The kick aggravated this pre-existing condition, causing the bone to decay. This led to a severe infection, requiring multiple surgeries and resulting in permanent impairment for Vosburg. The plaintiff sued for assault and battery. At trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff $2,500, finding that Putney’s kick was the “exciting cause” of the injury. The defendant appealed, arguing that because he did not intend to cause harm, he should not be held liable, and that in any event, the damages were not a foreseeable result of his minor act.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a defendant be held liable for battery for an intentional contact that was not intended to cause harm, and if so, is the defendant liable for all resulting damages even if they were unforeseeable due to the plaintiff’s particular vulnerability?
Yes, the defendant is liable for battery and all resulting damages. 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 aliqu
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 was not intended to cause harm, and if so, is the defendant liable for all resulting damages even if they were unforeseeable due to the plaintiff’s particular vulnerability?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent for the "eggshell skull" plaintiff rule Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. U
Legal Rule
In an action for battery, the 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
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis establishes two critical principles of tort law. First, it 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 cupi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- For battery, intent to cause harm is not required; intent to