Friday, October 10, 2014

O'Brien v. Cunard case brief summary


O'Brien v. Cunard case brief summary

F: P: O’Brien (P) - person who is vaccinated
D: Cunard S.S.- vaccination company
TC directed a verdict for the D, and the P brings exceptions.
D is accustomed to have its surgeons vaccinate all emigrants who desire it, and who are not protected by previous
vaccination, and give them a certificate which is accepted at quarantine as evidence of their protection. Notices of the regulations at quarantine, and vaccination by ship’s medical officer were posted on the ship. On the day when the vaccination was injected the surgeon had a right to resume that the P understood the purpose of vaccination. She understood from conversation with others that they were to be vaccinated. Upon the surgeon finding no marks on the P, she told him she had been vaccinated before, and it left no mark. Then, the surgeon said that she should be vacinnated again. She did not tell him she did not want to be vaccinated, and she took the ticket which he gave her, certifying that he had vaccinated her, and used it at quarantine.
I: In circumstances where the P does not indicate sign of objection to vaccination and takes the certification card from
the surgeon from quarantine, whether this is regarded as consent according to one’s will
R: When consent is not expressed, an individual may rely on the other party's behavior and acts in determining whether the party has consented to the individual's consent
Her inner state of mind is not issue.. Consent is not by inner state of mind, but express acts and manifestations of her feelings.
Where a P inwardly does not consent, outwardly consent manifestly, is the defense of consent is established?
Don’t need express consent. Consent can be inferred from circumstances.
Yes, it is.
Although consent is not the element that P must prove, D can be avoid from liability by showing consent of P.
C: affirmed. Exceptions overruled.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.