Mohr v. Williams
95 Minn. 261 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1905
Facts
Plaintiff consulted Defendant, an ear specialist, for trouble with her right ear. Defendant examined both ears, diagnosing a condition in the right ear requiring surgery, and advised an operation on it. Plaintiff consented to the operation on her right ear, believing her left ear was healthy. While plaintiff was unconscious under anesthesia for the scheduled right ear surgery, Defendant re-examined her left ear and found it to be in a more serious condition than the right. After consulting with plaintiff's family physician, Defendant decided to operate on the left ear instead of the right, performing an ossiculectomy on the left ear. The operation was skillfully performed, but plaintiff claims it impaired her hearing and, not having been consented to, constituted an assault and battery.
Procedural history
The trial court rendered a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial due to excessive damages. The trial court denied the motion for judgment but granted a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive. Defendant appealed the denial of judgment, and plaintiff appealed the order granting a new trial.
Issue
Was the physician's act of operating on the patient's left ear, when consent was given only for the right ear and no immediate emergency existed, an unauthorized touching constituting assault and battery? Was the patient's consent necessary under these circumstances?
Holding
The court affirmed the trial court's order denying the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding that the evidence supported the jury's potential finding that the operation was unauthorized. The court also affirmed the trial court's order granting a new trial due to excessive damages, concluding that the operation, if unauthorized, constituted a technical assault and battery.
Rule
Ordinarily, a patient's consent, either express or implied, is required before a physician may operate, as individuals have a right to the inviolability of their person. Exceptions exist for emergencies where prompt surgical attention is necessary to preserve life or limb, or when unforeseen conditions discovered during a consented operation endanger the patient's life or health. However, these exceptions do not apply if the condition was discovered during an independent examination, not during the authorized operation, and was not an immediate life-threatening emergency. Any unlawful or unauthorized touching of another's person constitutes an assault and battery in a civil action, regardless of the absence of evil intent or negligence.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.