a violent pain in the place of contact. Plaintiff became ill, reporting vomiting and swelling so severe, it twice required surgery. During 2nd surgery, doctors discovered the bone had degenerated to an unrecoverable state. Defendant was unaware that plaintiff had sustained injury to the same leg, approximately six weeks earlier. Expert testimony attributed the damage and loss of limb use to the contact from defendant. Chronology Plaintiff took action against defendant alleging assault and battery. A lower court found for plaintiff and awarded $2,800. Defendant appealed. The verdict was set aside and the case was remanded with an order for a new trial. On second trial, jury returns a special verdict of seven parts. Defendant motions (JNOV) were denied, a judgment for $2,500 was granted to plaintiff. Defendant appeals on sixth part of the special verdict - Did defendant intend to do plaintiff harm? Issues Whether the plaintiff lacked a cause of action where the jury found the "defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, did not intend to do him any harm". Do material omissions in the statement of facts in a hypothetical question render it inadmissible? Is the recovery of damages limited to what an individual might reasonably be supposed to have contemplated? Holdings Sustained (yes) Remand, granting new trial. Sustained (yes) Judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial because of error in a ruling on an objection to certain testimony. Rules "The intention to do harm is the essence of an assault" and "If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful." "there can be no rule of evidence which will tolerate a hypothetical question to an expert, calling for his opinion in a matter vital to the case, which excludes from his consideration facts already proved by a witness upon whose testimony such hypothetical question is based, when a consideration of such facts by the expert is absolutely essential to enable him to form an intelligent opinion concerning such matter." Brown v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 54 Wis. 342 - "The rule of damages in actions for torts was held [in a prior case] to be that the wrong-doer is liable for all injuries resulting directly from the wrongful act, whether they could or could not have been foreseen by him [wrong-doer]. Rationale Reasoning that, such is the rule in actions