Chambers v. Nottebaum
Decision Date | 15 August 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 57-42,57-42 |
Parties | Silas E. CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. Walter NOTTEBAUM, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George S. Okell, Sr., Miami, for appellant.
Warren, Klein & Moore, Miami Beach, for appellee.
Appellant was the defendant in the court below, against whom a jury verdict was rendered. Plaintiff was an adult college student, who was operated on for appendicitis by the defendant surgeon. He sued, alleging trespass to the person, claiming that a resulting permanent injury in the form of a partial paralysis of one of his legs was caused by the use of a spinal anesthetic administered by defendant, allegedly contrary to his express instructions.
The plaintiff's case was not one of malpractice but for trespass to the person, as pointed out in Donald v. Swann, 24 Ala.App. 463, 137 So. 178, 180, certiorari denied 223 Ala. 493, 137 So. 181, which said:
See also, Cady v. Fraser, 122 Colo. 252, 222 P.2d 422.
The defendant's answer contained a denial; contended that any restrictions respecting the use of an anesthetic had been released by the plaintiff himself or through his agent; and charged plaintiff with contributory negligence.
Based on his eighteen assignment of error, appellant has stated six questions here. We reduce them to these three: (1) sufficiency of the evidence; (2) failure to include an essential charge to the jury, and (3) a departure in pleading and variance in proof.
In determining the question of liability the jury was required to decide a number of issues on which there was conflicting testimony.
The plaintiff suffered from a lame appendix, for which he consulted the defendant a number of times during the summer of 1951, the year of the operation, while attending a local university summer school. In the middle of August, when he was through school for a period of weeks, it was his testimony that it was suggested by the doctor that he have his appendix taken out at that time for convenience. Plaintiff denied that there was any flare-up or emergency, but the testimony given by the doctor was to the effect that the plaintiff's condition was acute and an emergency situation had arisen.
The plaintiff and his mother testified that when the operation was arranged, on that day in August, the plaintiff informed the doctor that he would not permit a spinal anesthetic, and that the doctor agreed not to use that type of anesthetic. A second conflict was produced in the evidence when the doctor denied that, and testified he did not recall any such discussion.
A third conflict in the evidence related to the circumstances in connection with the plaintiff's mother signing for his admission at the hospital, which included an authority to use any anesthetic determined upon by the doctor. She was not acting for a minor. He had passed his twenty-first birthday. Acting for him as his agent, if the mother signed the authority to use any anesthetic, with his knowledge and consent, or otherwise under circumstances so as to bind him on that feature, it could operate to release any contrary instructions previously given about the spinal anesthetic. On that feature, the plaintiff testified that he was not in the room when she signed the paper in the hospital; that what she signed concerning anesthetics was not within his knowledge; and that his authority to her was limited to having her sign for his admission. His mother's testimony tends to corroborate that.
On the defendant's side there was contrary evidence, to the effect that the plaintiff was in the room; that he saw what his mother was doing; and that reference was made in his presence to the consent for the anesthetics which was included in the document his mother was signing.
The verdict for the plaintiff in this case resolved and settled those conflicts in the evidence, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
The rule is well established which prevents a doctor from operating on a patient without his express or implied consent, or in a manner contrary to the patient's express instructions. A statement of this rule was made in Wall v. Brim, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 478, at page 481:
An emergency arising may furnish an exception. The effect of an emergency situation on the rule is set out in 41 Am.Jur. 222-23, Physicians and Surgeons, § 110, as follows:
In the case of Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92, at page 93, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 505, a New York Court of Appeals decision, the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Cardozo, contains the following:
* * *.'
An early leading case on this subject was Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 104 N.W. 12, 14-15, 11 L.R.A.,N.S., 439, in which the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...jury as an assault or battery, rather than in terms of negligence. Brown v. Wood, 202 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Chambers v. Nottebaum, 96 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957). When the issues on such a claim are to be presented in terms of negligence, instruction 402.4b is to be used in conjunc......
-
Valcin v. Public Health Trust of Dade County
...4th DCA 1968) (negligence); Brown v. Wood, 202 So.2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (negligence or assault and battery); Chambers v. Nottebaum, 96 So.2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957) (trespass).3 "A valid signature is one which is given by a person who under all the surrounding circumstances is mentally a......
-
Brown, In re
...(Supp.1984). Violation of this rule constitutes a battery. See Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554, 557 (Okla.1979); Chambers v. Nottebaum, 96 So.2d 716, 718-19 (Fla.App.1957); Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 104 N.W. 12, 14-15 The informed consent rule rests upon the bedrock of this state's re......
-
Green v. Alachua Cnty.
...all others [is] the right to the inviolability of his person; in other words, the right to himself ...." (quoting Chambers v. Nottebaum , 96 So. 2d 716, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957) )); id. at 117 ; Gainesville Woman Care , 210 So. 3d at 1262 (reiterating well-understood "concepts of bodily auton......
-
Physical torts
...procedure conditioned PHYSICAL TORTS 3-5 Physical Torts §3-1:40 on discovery of arthritis or malalignment); Chambers v. Nottebaum , 96 So. 2d 716, 717-18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1957) (operation conditioned on promise of no spinal anesthetic); Moscicki v. Shor , 163 A. 341, 341-42 (Pa. Super. ......