## Facts

- Wilmer Steber, an 11-year-old boy, worked and lived on D. W. Norris’s farm during summers in exchange for room and board and was expected to perform assigned tasks for about six hours daily.
- Before the 1924 season, Wilmer’s mother signed a written authorization allowing Norris to discipline the boy for violating farm rules.
- Norris asserted Wilmer had failed to complete assigned tasks and had lied.
- On July 23, 1924, Norris took Wilmer into an office, questioned him about his conduct, and administered corporal punishment using a crude rubber whip about 30 inches long.
- The whipping was inflicted on Wilmer’s bare body; the parties disputed whether Norris stripped the boy or the boy undressed himself.
- Wilmer testified he was struck about 40–50 times, cried, pleaded to stop, and promised not to repeat the misconduct.
- After the whipping, Wilmer was required to work overtime for six days; on the seventh day he left and returned home.
- Physicians who examined Wilmer several days later reported stripes across his back extending toward the thighs, abrasions with crusting and scabs, swelling and discoloration in the lumbar region, and numerous marks consistent with multiple blows; Wilmer reported significant pain and lingering discomfort.

## Issues

1. Whether a person standing in loco parentis is privileged to use corporal punishment, and what limits apply to that privilege.
2. Whether the whipping was moderate and reasonable discipline or immoderate and excessive force supporting civil liability for assault and battery.
3. Whether a jury award of nominal damages ($1) was so inadequate, given the evidence of injury and suffering, that appellate relief was required.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the judgment based on the $1 damages verdict and remanded for a new trial.
- The court recognized a qualified privilege for one in loco parentis to discipline a child, limited to punishment that is moderate, reasonable, and aimed at the child’s welfare.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a finding that the punishment exceeded the privilege and that the nominal damages award was grossly inadequate in light of the injuries and pain shown.
- Three justices dissented.

## Legal Principles

- A person in loco parentis may administer corporal punishment only if it is moderate, reasonable, and for the child’s welfare.
- Whether discipline is reasonable or excessive is subject to judicial scrutiny and typically turns on fact-based assessment.
- Reasonableness may be evaluated by considering the child’s age and condition, the nature of the misconduct, the instrument used, the manner and extent of force, and the actor’s conduct.
- In a civil assault-and-battery action arising from excessive punishment, malice or permanent injury is not required; clearly excessive force can establish liability.
- A damages award that is merely nominal may be set aside as inadequate when uncontroverted evidence shows substantial physical injury and pain.

## Conclusion

The court held that a custodian with parental-type authority may discipline a child only within objective limits of moderate and reasonable force, and that a $1 verdict for a severe whipping with documented injuries and pain was grossly inadequate, requiring a new trial.


Steber v. Norris, 206 N.W. 173 (Wis. 1925)