From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. London

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 15, 1968
29 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Summary

In Moore v London (29 A.D.2d 666) in passing upon the claim of a plaintiff based upon an unauthorized operation, the court said: "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.

Summary of this case from Garone v. Roberts' Trade School

Opinion

January 15, 1968


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.


Summaries of

Moore v. London

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 15, 1968
29 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

In Moore v London (29 A.D.2d 666) in passing upon the claim of a plaintiff based upon an unauthorized operation, the court said: "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.

Summary of this case from Garone v. Roberts' Trade School
Case details for

Moore v. London

Case Details

Full title:AURORA MOORE, Appellant, v. EPHRAIM J. LONDON, by His Guardian ad Litem…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 15, 1968

Citations

29 A.D.2d 666 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)
286 N.Y.S.2d 319

Citing Cases

Valenti v. Prudden

When a verdict is set aside as being contrary to the weight of the evidence, the trial court must order a new…

Guebard v. Jabaay

• 3 In a number of decisions, whether a signed form constituted effective consent to treatment has been held…