Vosburg v. Putney (Egg Shell Skull Theory)
Easy English case explainer for students — short, clean, and classroom-ready.
Quick Summary
A light kick in a classroom triggered a serious injury because the student who was kicked had a healing leg. The court said the act was unlawful in that setting and the wrongdoer must bear all the direct consequences, even if the severe harm was not foreseeable. This is the egg shell skull (thin skull) rule: you take your victim as you find them.
Issues
- Is a wrongdoer liable for all injuries that directly flow from the wrongful act, even if those injuries could not be foreseen?
- Is a strict intention “to do harm” required to prove assault and battery, or is an unlawful act or fault enough?
Rules
- In assault and battery, the plaintiff must show either an unlawful intention or that the defendant was at fault.
- A defendant is liable for all direct consequences of the wrongful act, even if the extent of harm was unforeseeable (thin skull rule).
| Citation | Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891) |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Area of Law | Torts — Assault & Battery, Damages |
Facts (Timeline)
Before the incident: The plaintiff (14) had hurt his leg earlier in the same spot; it was healing.
In class: The defendant (11) reached across the aisle and gave a slight kick to the plaintiff’s shin.
Immediate reaction: At first nothing. Minutes later, sharp pain; the plaintiff cried out.
Medical effect: The kick disturbed the healing process; the plaintiff lost the use of his leg for a time.
Lawsuit: The plaintiff sued for assault and battery.
Arguments
Appellant (Plaintiff)
- The kick in a classroom was unlawful contact.
- Direct consequences must be fully compensated, even if the extent was not foreseeable.
- Classroom norms do not allow such kicking; fault is established.
Respondent (Defendant)
- The kick was slight and not meant to cause harm.
- Severe injury was unforeseeable; damages should not cover unusual fragility.
- No intent to injure, so no assault or battery.
Judgment
The court found for the plaintiff. The act was unlawful because it occurred in a classroom where such contact is not permitted. The defendant was liable for the full extent of injury that directly followed, even though it was severe and unexpected.
Ratio Decidendi
A defendant who commits an unlawful contact is responsible for all direct injuries that result, even when the victim’s special vulnerability makes the harm far worse than expected.
Why It Matters
- Sets the famous egg shell skull rule for tort damages.
- Clarifies that unlawfulness or fault, not a desire to injure, can ground assault and battery.
- Highlights the role of context (classroom vs playground) in judging lawfulness.
Key Takeaways
- Setting matters: The same act may be unlawful in class but tolerated on a playground.
- No foreseeability limit for extent: Once the act is unlawful, full direct harm is payable.
- Intent or fault: The plaintiff can succeed by proving either one.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
VOS = Victim-as-found, Outcome-all-direct, Setting-unlawful.
- Spot the setting (class vs play).
- Check for unlawful act or fault.
- Apply thin skull: pay all direct harm.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Liability for unforeseeable but direct injury after an unlawful, slight kick in class; need for intent vs fault.
Rule
Assault/battery proven by unlawful intent or fault; defendant liable for all direct consequences (thin skull).
Application
Classroom norms make the kick unlawful; the prior leg injury made harm severe, but the severity does not reduce liability.
Conclusion
Judgment for plaintiff; full compensatory damages awarded.
Glossary
- Egg Shell Skull (Thin Skull) Rule
- You must take the victim as you find them; hidden fragility does not limit damages.
- Unlawful Contact
- Touching that is not socially or legally permitted in the situation.
- Direct Consequences
- Harms that flow straight from the wrongful act without a new intervening cause.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now