Case
Vosburg v. Putney
Answer: Vosburg v. Putney (Wis. 1891). The court held that intent to make the contact—without consent—suffices for battery, even if harm was not intended, and that the defendant is liable for the full extent of injury under the thin‑skull rule once the wrongful contact proximately causes the harm.
Rule to remember
Vosburg v. Putney (Wis. 1891) is the classic battery case: a slight, non‑consensual kick in a classroom caused severe injury, and the court imposed liability because intent to contact sufficed and the thin‑skull rule required full damages for unforeseeable aggravation.
Key elements and checks
- Battery (civil): defendant acted; intended to cause contact; contact was harmful or offensive; causation; lack of consent.
- Intent to harm is not required; intent to cause the contact is enough for liability when the contact is harmful or offensive.
- Consent—express or implied (e.g., sports/horseplay)—negates battery; context determines whether contact is privileged.
- Eggshell skull rule: once liability attaches, defendant answers for the full extent of injury proximately caused, even if unforeseeable.
In the source’s words
“Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent.”
battery | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
“As long as the injury was proximately caused by the defendant’s wrongful act, the defendant is responsible for the resulting harm, no matter how severe.”
eggshell skull rule | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
State tort law varies. Jurisdictions articulate elements and the ‘offensive contact’ standard differently, and contexts implying consent (sports, playground) differ by state. The thin‑skull rule’s phrasing varies, but most states apply it in intentional torts and negligence.