Front | Back |
Mohr v. Williams
|
Doctor operated on different ear than supposed to.
Every person has the right to complete immunity of his person from physical interference of others
|
Kennedy v. Parrott
|
Surgeon found large cysts on plaintiffs ovaries
Surgeon may extend the operation to any problem within the area designated for operation
|
Hoofnel v. Segal
|
Womanly parts not to be messed with
consent form was clear and important to enforce
|
OBrien v. Cunard
|
Immigrant to America, small pox
consent is enough to barr cause of action
|
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
|
Emergency rule. allowed where the patient is unconscious and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained.
|
Allore v. Flower Hospital
|
Implied consent is a legal fiction justified by assumption that the plaintiff as a rational agent would have consented to the operation
|
Cotnam v. Wisdom
|
Allowing the action, but only for the successful knowledge of the decedent's higher fees based on the physicians special knowledge of the decedents wealth
|
Bonner v. Moran
|
Consent of the parent is necessary for an operation on a child
|
Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital
|
Wife cut off life support to husband
law protects the guardians goodfaith decision from any judicial challenge or review
|
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri DOH
|
Clear and convincing evidence that she would have adopted that course of action if presented with the choice wihle still competent
|
Lausier v. Pescinski
|
Did not have the power to permit the removal of one of the incompetent's kidney's needed to save the life of his brother, even though the risk of harm to the incompetent was slight
|
McPherson v. McPherson
|
Defendant's conduct was actionable if he intentionally misrepresented or failed to affirmatively disclose his diseased condition to his wife.
|
Hudson v. Craft
|
Boxing match at carnival
If you are beneficiary of a law you can't consent to violation
|
Hart v. Geysel
|
Prizefight
It is not necessary to reward the one that got the worst of the encounter at the expense of his more fortunate opponent
|
Barton v. Bee Line
|
Underage girl slept with person
will not be vindicated by recompensing her for willing particpation in that against which the law sought to protect
|