Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905).
Facts: A physician performed a surgical operation on a patient’s left ear. He had permission to perform surgery, but only on the patient’s right ear.
Issue: The Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed the question of whether a physician had the discretion to perform a surgical operation on a patient’s left ear when he had only received authorization from the patient to perform an operation on her right ear.
Held: The Mohr court ruled that such unauthorized contact constituted a battery:
Analysis: Operations carried out by physicians without a plaintiff’s consent, and without exigent or emergency circumstances present that might justify such performance, are unacceptable and “unlawful.†No person may have his right to physical security violated by another without his permission. Such touching, without consent, amounts to an assault and battery.
Facts: A physician performed a surgical operation on a patient’s left ear. He had permission to perform surgery, but only on the patient’s right ear.
Issue: The Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed the question of whether a physician had the discretion to perform a surgical operation on a patient’s left ear when he had only received authorization from the patient to perform an operation on her right ear.
Held: The Mohr court ruled that such unauthorized contact constituted a battery:
Analysis: Operations carried out by physicians without a plaintiff’s consent, and without exigent or emergency circumstances present that might justify such performance, are unacceptable and “unlawful.†No person may have his right to physical security violated by another without his permission. Such touching, without consent, amounts to an assault and battery.