Скачать или смотреть O'Brien v. Cunard (1891) - Implied Consent

FACTS:
1. Mary O'Brien was a passenger traveling on a Cunard Steamship from Liverpool to Boston.
2. The ship's surgeon was vaccinating passengers against smallpox.
3. O'Brien stood in line, held out her arm, and received the vaccination without saying anything.
4. Later, she sued Cunard, claiming assault and battery, arguing she never actually gave consent.

ISSUE:
Did O'Brien's actions amount to valid consent to the vaccination, even though she never verbally agreed?

DECISION:
1. The court ruled in favor of Cunard Steamship Co.
2. By her conduct, O'Brien gave implied consent to the vaccination.

REASONING
1. Consent doesn't need to be spoken or written; it can be shown by behavior.
2. By joining the line and extending her arm, O'Brien clearly communicated agreement.
3. Therefore, the doctor's actions were lawful and not assault.

SIGNIFICANCE:
1. This case is a cornerstone for the concept of implied consent in tort law.
2. Often cited in medical law and battery cases: consent can be shown through actions as well as words.

Watch my next legal case story! Hurley v. Eddingfield (1901)
   • Hurley v. Eddingfield (1901) - No Duty To ...  

#lawschoolsuccess #lawexplained #youtubelaw #lawmadesimple #learnlaw #lawforeveryone #lawforbeginners #storytellinglaw #lawschoolprep