Moore v. London

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. London

29 A.D.2d 666, 286 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4857

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1968·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

In an action for assault against a physician, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the, Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 26, 1966, in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, whether the paper signed by plaintiff constituted a valid consent to defendant’s operation and treatment procedure, under the facts and circumstances here proved, constituted a question of fact for the jury. It was for the jury to determine whether an emergency situation occurred or was present which justified or excused defendant’s actions in performing a. hysterectomy and Caesarian section when engaged for delivery of a child (Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 211 N. Y. 125; Scott v. Kaye, 24 A D 2d 890; 56 ALR 2d 704). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action for assault against a physician, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the, Supreme Court, Queens County, entered July 26, 1966, in favor of defendant upon the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint at the end of the plaintiff’s case upon a jury trial. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No questions of fact were considered on this appeal. In our opinion, whether the paper signed by plaintiff constituted a valid consent to defendant’s operation and treatment procedure, under the facts and circumstances here proved, constituted a question of fact for the jury. It was for the jury to determine whether an emergency situation occurred or was present which justified or excused defendant’s actions in performing a. hysterectomy and Caesarian section when engaged for delivery of a child (Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 211 N. Y. 125; Scott v. Kaye, 24 A D 2d 890; 56 ALR 2d 704). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Moore v. London, 29 A.D.2d 666, 286 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

29 A.D.2d 666 (Moore v. London) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related