## Facts

- Andrew Vosburg (14) and George Putney (11) were schoolboys seated in a classroom during school hours in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
- Putney intentionally reached across the aisle and lightly kicked Vosburg’s right shin with his toe.
- The kick was characterized as playful or mischievous; Putney did not intend to injure Vosburg and did not know Vosburg had a vulnerable leg.
- Weeks earlier, Vosburg had injured the same leg while coasting; it appeared to be healing at the time of the classroom incident.
- Shortly after the kick, Vosburg felt severe pain; his condition worsened over days and weeks, leading to medical treatment and operations.
- Medical testimony supported that the kick acted as the “exciting cause” that reactivated an underlying condition, resulting in bone deterioration and permanent loss of use of the limb.

## Issues

1. Whether liability for assault and battery requires an intent to cause harm, or whether intent to make an unlawful contact is sufficient.
2. Whether a defendant who commits a wrongful contact is liable for all directly resulting injuries even if unforeseeable and aggravated by the plaintiff’s preexisting condition.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that in an action for assault and battery, intent to harm is not required if the defendant intentionally committed an unlawful contact or was at fault in making the contact.
- The court treated the classroom kick as unlawful because it violated the order and decorum of the school and was not within any implied permission applicable to roughhousing.
- The court stated that a wrongdoer is liable for all injuries directly resulting from the wrongful act, whether or not foreseeable, even when the plaintiff’s condition makes the harm unusually severe.
- The judgment was reversed due to instructional error, and the case was remanded for a new trial, while reaffirming the governing rules on intent and scope of damages.

## Legal Principles

- Battery liability may rest on intent to make a contact that is unlawful under the circumstances; intent to injure is not an element where the contact itself is wrongful.
- Whether a contact is “unlawful” can depend on context and social permission; conduct potentially tolerated in play may be wrongful in a setting requiring order and restraint.
- A defendant who commits a wrongful contact is liable for all direct consequences of that act, even if the extent of harm is unforeseeable.
- A tortfeasor takes the plaintiff as found; the plaintiff’s unusual susceptibility or preexisting condition does not reduce liability for direct resulting harm.

## Conclusion

The court framed battery around intentional unlawful contact rather than intent to harm and applied the rule that a wrongdoer bears responsibility for the full extent of directly caused injuries, even when the plaintiff’s prior condition makes the outcome far more serious than expected.


Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891)