Mohr v. Williams

Last updated
Mohr v. Williams
Minnesota-StateSeal.svg
Court Minnesota Supreme Court
Decided1905
Citation(s)95 Minn. 261, 104 N.W. 12, 108 N.W. 818
Case history
Subsequent action(s)none
Holding
If an operation is performed on a patient without that patient's consent, and the circumstances were not such as to justify its performance without consent, that operation constitutes an assault and battery
Case opinions
Decision by Calvin L. Brown

Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905) is a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court authored by Calvin L. Brown. For almost a century, this case has been used in first-year Torts classes in American law schools to teach students about consent. [1]

Contents

Background

Dr. Williams was a physician and surgeon, practicing in Saint Paul, Minnesota and specializing in disorders of the ear. [2] Mrs. Mohr was a patient who came to Dr. Williams complaining of trouble with her right ear. [2] Dr. Williams examined her right ear and he discovered that there was a large perforation in the eardrum, that there was a large polyp in the middle ear, and that the ossicles of the middle ear were probably diseased. [2] Dr. Williams also examined Mrs. Mohr's left ear, but he was unable to make a full examination because of a foreign substance in the left ear. [2]

On Dr. Williams' recommendation, Mrs. Mohr agreed to have surgery on her right ear to remove the polyp and diseased ossicles. [2] Anesthetics were used during the operation. [2] After the patient was unconscious, Dr. Williams made a full examination of Mrs. Mohr's left ear and discovered that it was in a worse state than her right ear: there was a small perforation high up in the drum membrane, hooded and with rough edges, and the bone of the inner wall of the middle ear was diseased and dead. [2] Dr. Williams also examined the right ear and found that it was not in as bad a condition as he had anticipated. [2] He therefore decided to operate on the left ear instead of the right, performing an ossiculectomy, removing a part of the drum membrane and scraping away the diseased portion of the inner ear. [2]

Mrs. Mohr later brought suit against Dr. Williams, claiming that he had damaged her hearing and seriously injured her person, and that, because she had not consented to surgery on her left ear, his actions were wrongful and unlawful and constituted an assault and battery. [2] Mrs. Mohr asked the court to award her $20,000 in damages. [2] A trial was held in the district court for Ramsey County, Minnesota and the jury found for Mrs. Mohr and awarded her $14,322.50 in damages. [2] The trial judge set aside the jury's verdict as excessive. [2] Both parties appealed. [2]

On appeal, Mrs. Mohr's lawyers, H. A. Loughran and S. C. Olmstead, argued that Mrs. Mohr's consent was necessary and without consent, Dr. Williams' actions constituted an assault and battery. [2] Dr. Williams' lawyers, Keith, Evans, Thompson & Fairchild and John D. O'Brien, argued that in circumstances such as this, where a physician acted to arrest disease and save life, a physician's actions should be held lawful even if the patient did not explicitly consent to the surgery. [2]

Opinion of the Court

In an opinion authored by Calvin L. Brown, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Mrs. Mohr. [2]

Justice Brown began by noting the basic principle of the law that "every person has a right to complete immunity of his person from physical interference of others, except in so far as contact may be necessary under the general doctrine of privilege; and any unauthorized touching of the person of another, except it be in the spirit of pleasantry, constitutes an assault and battery." [2] Unlike the crime of assault and battery which requires proof of a bad intent, for the tort of assault and battery, a touching is unlawful if it is unauthorized regardless of the defendant's intent. [2] Whether Dr. Williams' actions were authorized by Mrs. Mohr was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. [2] The court held that the fact that Mrs. Mohr's family physician attended the operation and agreed with Dr. Williams' decision to operate on the left ear was irrelevant. [2]

The court therefore affirmed the orders of the lower court. [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assault</span> Physical or verbal attack of another person

An assault is the act of illegally committing physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in criminal prosecution, civil liability, or both. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cholesteatoma</span> Medical condition

Cholesteatoma is a destructive and expanding growth consisting of keratinizing squamous epithelium in the middle ear and/or mastoid process. Cholesteatomas are not cancerous as the name may suggest, but can cause significant problems because of their erosive and expansile properties. This can result in the destruction of the bones of the middle ear (ossicles), as well as growth through the base of the skull into the brain. They often become infected and can result in chronically draining ears. Treatment almost always consists of surgical removal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eardrum</span> Membrane separating the external ear from the middle ear

In the anatomy of humans and various other tetrapods, the eardrum, also called the tympanic membrane or myringa, is a thin, cone-shaped membrane that separates the external ear from the middle ear. Its function is to transmit sound from the air to the ossicles inside the middle ear, and then to the oval window in the fluid-filled cochlea. Hence, it ultimately converts and amplifies vibration in the air to vibration in cochlear fluid. The malleus bone bridges the gap between the eardrum and the other ossicles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Endoscopy</span> Procedure used in medicine to look inside the body

An endoscopy is a procedure used in medicine to look inside the body. The endoscopy procedure uses an endoscope to examine the interior of a hollow organ or cavity of the body. Unlike many other medical imaging techniques, endoscopes are inserted directly into the organ.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colonoscopy</span> Endoscopic examination of the bowel

Colonoscopy or coloscopy is the endoscopic examination of the large bowel and the distal part of the small bowel with a CCD camera or a fiber optic camera on a flexible tube passed through the anus. It can provide a visual diagnosis and grants the opportunity for biopsy or removal of suspected colorectal cancer lesions.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person’s movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nasal polyp</span> Noncancerous growths within the nose or sinuses

Nasal polyps (NP) are noncancerous growths within the nose or sinuses. Symptoms include trouble breathing through the nose, loss of smell, decreased taste, post nasal drip, and a runny nose. The growths are sac-like, movable, and nontender, though face pain may occasionally occur. They typically occur in both nostrils in those who are affected. Complications may include sinusitis and broadening of the nose.

This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.

At common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'Trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conductive hearing loss</span> Medical condition

Conductive hearing loss (CHL) occurs when there is a problem transferring sound waves anywhere along the pathway through the outer ear, tympanic membrane (eardrum), or middle ear (ossicles). If a conductive hearing loss occurs in conjunction with a sensorineural hearing loss, it is referred to as a mixed hearing loss. Depending upon the severity and nature of the conductive loss, this type of hearing impairment can often be treated with surgical intervention or pharmaceuticals to partially or, in some cases, fully restore hearing acuity to within normal range. However, cases of permanent or chronic conductive hearing loss may require other treatment modalities such as hearing aid devices to improve detection of sound and speech perception.

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. 'The conduct forbidden by this tort is an act that threatens violence.'

<i>Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee</i>

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent. Bolam was rejected in the 2015 Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board in matters of informed consent.

<i>Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital</i>

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, was a decision issued by the New York Court of Appeals in 1914 which established principles of respondeat superior in United States law.

<i>Norberg v Wynrib</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Norberg v Wynrib, [1992] 2 SCR 226 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the fiduciary duty between doctors and patients, and on the limits of consent as a defence in sexual assault.

<i>Reibl v Hughes</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Reibl v Hughes [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on negligence, medical malpractice, informed consent, the duty to warn, and causation.

In criminal law, consent may be used as an excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring liability for what was done.

<i>Wilkinson v Downton</i>

Wilkinson v Downton[1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57 is an English tort law decision in which the Common Law first recognised the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock. At the time, this was not covered under the law of negligence.

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Otic polyp</span> Medical condition

An otic polyp is a benign proliferation of chronic inflammatory cells associated with granulation tissue, in response to a longstanding inflammatory process of the middle ear.

References

  1. See, e.g., John Henry Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts (1912), Vol. 2, pp. 78-81; Richard Epstein, Cases and Materials on Torts (8th ed., 2004), pp. 20-21.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905)