An eleven year-old boy (Jake Putney) lightly kicks a fourteen year-old classmate (Eddie Vosburg) in the shin just below the knee, intending to embarrass him but not to cause physical harm. Unknown to Putney, Vosburg had previously sustained an injury to the same area during a sledding accident. The kick aggravates the existing wound, and as a direct result, Vosburg permanently looses the use of his leg. Vosburg (Plaintiff) sues Putney (Defendant) for his injuries.
My question is how big is the negligence for the Putney?
Putney didn;t know anything about the injury occurred before.
How is going judge deal with this situation?
2007-10-12 11:45:20 · 6 answers · asked by Steve S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Your teacher should have changed the names around at least. This is from the 1891 case Vosburg v. Putney 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. 1891) and wikipedia has a short description of the case. Bravo to Shellanswerman for pointing out a) this isn't a negligence case but an intentional tort and b) the term "eggshell plaintiff".
Your question is meant to test on the "eggshell skull" rule.
I remember this case with "Vosburg verily had shells for shins"
This case has been in Tort law books for a century
2007-10-13 10:05:50 · answer #1 · answered by Discipulo legis, quis cogitat? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is a 14 year old a class mate of an eleven year old? If it was the case that the 14 year old was a few years behind and the Putney kid was always bullying him the outcome could be different. But that is another hypothetical situation.
The eleven year old could be charged but depending on the judge Putney will probably just get a slap on the wrist. He might get a battery charge, but not the full punishment that typically comes with it.
2007-10-12 11:56:00 · answer #2 · answered by just some chick 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if putney didn't know, the law says that he has to deal with vosburg's susceptibilities just as if he did. vosburg would be called an "eggshell" plaintiff.
This is NOT negligence, by the way. The kick was a BATTERY as the **kick** was intentional even though the **outcome** was not.
if putney is found liable he will be on the hook for all present, past and future pain and suffering by vosberg; and also all present past, and future economic losses that can be proven and attributed to the loss of the use of the leg
2007-10-12 11:55:58 · answer #3 · answered by Shell Answer Man 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Putney knew or should have known that his actions would cause injury. I do not believe that he would be able to successfully defend himself based on the fact the injury was greater than anticipated.
The fact that their was a preexisting wound is immaterial unless there was already some permanent loss of function.
2007-10-12 11:51:37 · answer #4 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Research helps your brain:
http://injury.findlaw.com/personal-injury/personal-injury-law/negligence/
Have fun!
2007-10-12 11:55:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
sounds like someone needs homework help---read the case
2007-10-12 12:07:51 · answer #6 · answered by discmiss1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋