Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital | |
---|---|
Miller | |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Cardozo, joined by Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Cuddeback |
Bartlett and Miller took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914), was a decision issued by the New York Court of Appeals in 1914 which established principles of respondeat superior in United States law.[1]
Facts
In January 1908, Mary Schloendorff, also known as Mary Gamble—an
Judgment
The Court found that the operation to which the plaintiff did not consent constituted medical battery. Justice
Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages. This is true except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained.
Schloendorff, however, had sued the hospital itself, not the physicians.[1] For this reason, the Court found that a non-profit hospital could not be held liable for the actions of its employees, analogizing to the principle of charitable immunity.[1]
Significance
The idea that a non-profit hospital could not be sued for actions of its employees became a principle that became known as the "Schloendorff rule." The Court would later reject the "Schloendorff rule" in the 1957 decision of Bing v. Thunig.
See also
- US tort law
References
- ^ ISBN 0195036867.
- ^ Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914). (Full text via HathiTrust Digital Library.)
External links
- "Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital". Northeastern Reporter. 105: 92.
- "Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital". New York Reports. 211: 125.
- Summary and Opinion of the case