De May v Roberts Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

2020 Torts Law I Case Brief - De May v Roberts (case on consent in tort law)...

Description

Consent

De May v. Roberts Supreme Court of Michigan, 1881 46 Mich. 160, 9 N.W.146. FACTS Parties: Plaintiff: De May, appellee Defendant: Roberts, appellant Procedural History: o Trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff who sued for damages for deceit o Defendant appealed the decision Relevant Facts: o The plaintiff was giving birth and the Dr. De May (defendant) arrived at her house to deliver the baby o He arrived with Scattergood, whom the plaintiff thought to be a physician as well o Scattergood held the plaintiff’s hand during the pains of childbirth o When the plaintiff found out he was not a physician but rather an unmarried man she sued saying that the plaintiff indecently, wrongfully, and unlawfully laid his hands on her and assaulted her Basis for Dispute: ISSUE: Whether or not the consent given by the plaintiff was valid if she was misled to the true identity of the third party? PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Plaintiff: o said he unlawfully touched her because he should not have been present at such an event Defendant: o Scattergood accompanied the Dr. because he requested it due to the bad weather conditions of the night, the dr. was sick and tired from being overworked and a horse could not be ridden there due to the weather.

Consent

o The Dr. maintained he needed assistance carrying a lantern, umbrella and necessary articles for the procedure o The husband let them in with no problem and he told Scattergood to hold her hand and he did so in an appropriate manner HOLDING: judgment of the trial court affirmed for the plaintiff DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: o Since the couple had no knowledge that Scattergood was not a physician he had no right being there without permission upon their knowledge of the facts o The occasion was a sacred one and no one should have been present that was not invited or had a necessity of being there o Just because she let him be there still makes him liable because she let him there under the impression he was a doctor o Both the Dr. and Scattergood are guilty of deceit because the plaintiff suffered shame and mortification when the truth was learned RULE OF LAW: o No one other than a Dr. is permitted in the presence of patient without their consent...