O'Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co.

O'Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co. - Issue Whether there was a...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co. 154 Mass. 272 (1891) Fact: Operative Facts: A women, O’Brien is suing a surgeon for battery because he injected a vaccine in her arm, as a basic routine when passing through as immigrients. There were posted signed all around in different lanugages stating that a vaccine would be administered, so they could clear quanintine. Also, if they previously had vaccine with their paperwork already, they didn’t need a new one. But those without the mark and papers, would be vaccinated. When the immigrants lined up, she lined up with them, and they extend their arms to show to the Surgeon. She did so too when the surgeon came to her, and didn’t say anything to say no, and there was no resistance.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Issue: Whether there was a battery Rule: Battery, the unlawful or offensive touching of another without their consent. Rational: The women was prewarned and knew what was going to happen. She also showed no resistance, so through her actions, it is reasonable for a person to assume that she consented to the act. Holding: Narrow: When a doctor works on a patients through a regultory action, and the patient does not resist and accepts the work done, then there is no battery because consent is given. Broad: If there is no resistance, after being warned of the actions that is going to go on, and the victim willfully participates, then there is no battery. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course TORTS 131 taught by Professor Keller during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online