Case-Briefings-Teams-Law12-Fall2014

Read Summary on Intentional Torts against the person, especially "battery"

2. Read the Ashcraft Case

3. Answer the following questions: (paste your answers in the BOX BELOW)

a. What relevance does the statement "At the time of this surgery, in 1983, no test was available to determine whether blood was contaminated with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)" have? Why is this an important fact and which side of the dispute does it favor?

b. what was the "battery" in the case based upon - set forth the exact language in the case regarding the grounds for alleging there was a battery

c. explain the following legal principle: "Thus, one who gives informed consent to a surgery cannot recover for resulting harm under a theory of battery." (Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 239 [104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1]; Keister v. O'Neil (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 428, 434-435 [138

d. what was the "conditional consent" expressed by plaintiff in this case - what was Dr. King supposed to do?

e. what does it mean "The judgment is reversed only as to plaintiff's cause of action for battery and, as to that cause of action, the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." - explain.

f. what kind of "intent" is plaintiff able to "prove" by showing "In the context of battery in a medical procedure, "[w]hen the patient gives permission to perform one type of treatment and the doctor performs another", and what does this intent support - what kind of claim or cause of action?

good luck. Prof J.