De May v. Roberts
46 Mich. 160, 1881 Mich. LEXIS 541, 9 N.W. 146 (1881)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person's consent to the presence or touching by another is invalid if it is obtained through deceit regarding the true character or identity of that person, particularly in a context where a right to privacy is expected.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Mrs. Roberts, was a married woman in labor at her home and hired defendant Dr. De May to assist with the delivery.
- Dr. De May brought defendant Scattergood, a young, unmarried man with no medical training, to the plaintiff's home on the night of the delivery.
- Upon arriving, Dr. De May introduced Scattergood to the plaintiff's husband as a 'friend' he brought along to help carry his things.
- The plaintiff, believing Scattergood to be an assistant physician or medical student, permitted his presence in her birthing room.
- During a paroxysm of pain, Dr. De May instructed Scattergood to hold the plaintiff's hand, and he did so.
- Scattergood remained in the small house and was present during the birth of the child.
- The plaintiff later discovered Scattergood's non-professional status and felt shame and mortification.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Roberts, filed a lawsuit against the defendants, De May and Scattergood, in a Michigan trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a layperson's presence and physical contact with a patient during childbirth, consented to by the patient under the mistaken belief induced by deceit that the person is a medical professional, constitute an actionable battery and invasion of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Marston, C. J.
Yes. A person's consent to the presence of another is not valid if it is obtained through deceit. The court reasoned that the occasion of childbirth is a sacred one where the plaintiff had a legal right to privacy. The defendants' failure to disclose Scattergood's true, non-professional character constituted deceit, which vitiated any consent the plaintiff gave for his presence and physical contact. The plaintiff and her husband had a right to presume that a physician would not introduce an unprofessional layman into such a situation, and De May's ambiguous statement was insufficient to overcome this presumption. The wrong was the intrusion itself, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover substantial damages for the subsequent shame and mortification she suffered upon discovering the truth.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in American tort law, establishing that consent obtained by fraud or deceit is legally ineffective. It affirms a legal right to privacy within one's home, especially during vulnerable moments like childbirth. The ruling broadens the tort of battery to include touchings where consent is fraudulently procured, not just those involving force or violence. This principle has become a cornerstone of the doctrine of informed consent in medical law, emphasizing that a patient's agreement is only valid when based on truthful and adequate information.
Unlock the full brief for De May v. Roberts