Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford
141 U.S. 250 (1891)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a federal civil action for personal injury, the court does not possess the inherent legal authority to order a plaintiff to submit, without consent, to a surgical or physical examination by the defendant's chosen expert.
Facts:
- Clara L. Botsford was a passenger on a train operated by the Union Pacific Railway Company.
- While she was in her berth on a sleeping car, an upper berth fell and struck her on the head.
- Botsford claimed this incident caused her severe and permanent injuries, including concussion of the brain and spine.
- The Railway Company denied the nature and extent of her alleged injuries.
- Prior to trial, the Railway Company requested that Botsford submit to an examination by a surgeon of its choosing to determine the extent of her injuries.
- Botsford refused to consent to the examination.
Procedural Posture:
- Clara L. Botsford sued the Union Pacific Railway Company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana to recover damages for personal injuries.
- Before the trial, the defendant Railway Company filed a motion asking the court to order the plaintiff to submit to a surgical examination.
- The plaintiff opposed the motion.
- The Circuit Court denied the defendant's motion, concluding it had no legal power to make such an order.
- The case proceeded to trial, where a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Botsford, for $10,000.
- The defendant, Union Pacific Railway Company, appealed to the United States Supreme Court, assigning as error the Circuit Court's refusal to order the examination.
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 federal court in a civil personal injury action have the legal power to order a plaintiff to submit to a surgical examination against her will?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Gray
No. A federal court does not have the legal power to order a plaintiff to submit to a surgical examination against her will. The common law holds no right more sacred than the right of every individual to the possession and control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference by others. To compel a person, especially a woman, to lay bare her body to the touch of a stranger without lawful authority constitutes an indignity, assault, and trespass. The few historical exceptions in English common law, such as determining impotence in divorce or inspecting a widow suspected of feigning pregnancy, do not apply to civil personal injury actions. Federal courts' powers are derived from the Constitution and statutes enacted by Congress, none of which grant the authority to compel such an examination. The federal statutes governing evidence and procedure do not authorize this form of discovery, and state court practices are not controlling in this matter.
Dissenting - Justice Brewer
Yes. A federal court should have the power to order such an examination because the ultimate goal of litigation is justice, which requires knowledge of the truth. A plaintiff may voluntarily exhibit their injuries to a jury to support their case, and it is unjust that they should be permitted to conceal the same evidence if it may weaken their claim. The dissent argues that truth and justice are more sacred than any personal consideration. The court could enforce such an order not through contempt proceedings but by staying the trial or dismissing the case until the plaintiff complies, thereby ensuring fairness without resorting to imprisonment.
Analysis:
This decision established a strong federal common law right to bodily integrity within the context of civil litigation, prioritizing a plaintiff's personal privacy over a defendant's discovery interests. The court's holding created a significant barrier for defendants seeking to verify the extent of injuries claimed in tort cases. This precedent, however, was later legislatively overruled by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938. Specifically, Rule 35 now explicitly grants federal courts the authority to order a party to submit to a physical or mental examination when their condition is in controversy and for good cause shown, rendering the direct holding of Botsford obsolete in modern federal practice.
Unlock the full brief for Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford