BANG V. CHARLES T. MILLER HOSPITAL
88 N.W.2d 186 (1958)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an action in battery for an alleged unauthorized operation.
FACTS: P alleged that D operated on him and that such an operation was unauthorized. P
came to D complaining of urinary problems and agreed to a cystoscopic examination. During
the examination D claimed that he had talked to P of his findings and got authorization to
do a transurethral prostatic resection. P alleged that D never told him his spermatic cords
would be cut. P eventually testified that he expected the doctor to do what was right. P
presented his case and D moved for a directed verdict on grounds that P failed to prove any
negligence or any cause of action against D. That motion was granted. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment