Reference no: EM131502366

Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school. The kick was not very hard - the jury found that "defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, did not intend to do him any harm." However, Vosburg was recovering from an earlier sledding injury to the same spot, and the light kick somehow caused Vosburg to permanently lose the use of his leg. The court ruled that, even though Putney had no way of knowing Vosburg was so fragile, he (his parents) was liable for the harm done.

This is an example of the "eggshell skull" principle in tort law - even if someone has a skull as fragile as an eggshell, if you tap them on the head and break their skull, you're still liable. This is also described as the doctrine that "we take our victims as we find them."

(a)  If we assume that people are aware of their own frailties, how does this compare to the ruling in Hadley v Baxendale? Do you see a reason for the difference?

(b) An alternative rule would be for injurers to be held liable for the harm their actions would have done to a "typical" victim, not the victim they actually injured. Which rule seems better to you? Why?