{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Morh vs. Williams

Morh vs. Williams - was not ill intended it was skillfully...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 404 11:25:18 rmf34 Morh vs. Williams Judge(s): J. Brown Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (Location, Date): Minnesota, June 1905 Plaintiff : Mrs. Williams Case Summary : Patient goes in for ear surgery; there was diseased inner ear tissue. The doctor says that the right ear would be operated on, and then before starting surgery, whilst the patient was anesthetized, sees that the left ear is in even worse condition, and decides to operate on the left ear instead without consent. The trial resulted in a judgment of $14,000 in damages on the basis that there was no emergency in conducting the procedure. Did the doctor assault and batter the patient? (According to the trial cout…) No, the act
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: was not ill intended, it was skillfully performed, even though the patient did not consent. The supreme court disagrees, the acts of the doctor amount to at least a technical assault and battery, regardless of intent. The operation was conducted without the patients consent, and it was not necessary to have happen immediately, so it was wrongful, and thus unlawful. Defense : Dr. Mohr Verdict : The plaintiff will receive (her recovery) depends on the character and the extent of the injury. The beneficial nature of the operation, as well as the good faith of the doctor/defendant should be taken into consideration. Law and Economics Notes :...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}