University:
University of California, Berkeley
Course:
Law 200.2 | Civil Procedure for LL.M.Students
Academic year:

2020
Views:

458

Pages:

1
Author:

blakestar2o1o

I. CITATION Vosburg v. Putney Vosburg- Plaintiff Putney- Defendant (1891) II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This was an action by the plaintiff to recover damages for battery, alleged to have been committed by the defendant upon the plaintiff. III. PROCEDURE The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff for $2,800. The defendant appealed to this court, the verdict was reversed for error and a new trial was awarded. The case was tried again in the circuit court, which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,500. IV. STATEMENT OF FACT At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was about 14, the defendant about 11 years of age. The defendant reached across the aisle with his foot and hit with his toe the sin of the right leg of the plaintiff, the touch was slight. The plaintiff did not feel it at the time of impact, on account of it being so slight or loss of sensation produced by the shock. Over the next few days, he felt a violent pain causing him to be sick and the need of help to go to school. When the doctor saw him a few days later, there was a slight dislocation of skin entirely over the inner surface of the tibia an inch below the bend of the knee. Medical attention was given, but he will never recover the use of his limb. The theory of at least one medical witness was that the limb was in a diseased condition when the touch was given, caused by microbes entering in through the wound above the knee, and which were revivified by the touch, and that the touch was the exciting or remote cause of the destruction of the bone, or of the plaintiff’s injury. V. ISSUE Can the defendant be held liable for battery against the plaintiff? More specifically, even though he did not intend to harm the plaintiff is the defendant still liable? VI. HOLDING Yes, the defendant could be held liable even though he did not intend to harm the plaintiff. VII. REASONS Doctrinal Reason: The jury found that the Defendant did not intend to do any harm to plaintiff, but the wrongdoer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could not have been foreseen by the defendant. In conclusion, the intent to harm would have sufficed to establish battery; also a less malicious state of mind suffices to establish battery. Policy Reason: One must take responsibility for their actions. VIII. ADDITIONS