## Facts

- Daisy Ashcraft, a 16-year-old patient with scoliosis, underwent corrective spinal surgery performed by Dr. John D. King at Children’s Hospital in 1983.
- Before surgery, Daisy and her mother discussed the need for blood transfusions and the possibility of using family-donated blood.
- Daisy’s mother testified she insisted the surgery be performed using only family-donated blood and that Dr. King agreed; Dr. King testified only that family donation was discussed as a possibility.
- Dr. King instructed the family to contact the hospital to arrange family-donated blood; several relatives donated blood before and during the operation.
- During surgery, Daisy received blood exclusively from the hospital’s general supply, not from the donated family units.
- In 1987, the hospital discovered that Daisy had received blood from an HIV-positive donor; Daisy tested positive for HIV the same day.
- Daisy sued Dr. King for medical malpractice on negligence and battery theories based on the use of non-family blood.

## Issues

1. Whether performing a medical procedure in violation of an alleged express limitation on consent (use only family-donated blood) can constitute medical battery.
2. Whether the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of conditional consent to require submission of the battery claim to the jury, making nonsuit improper.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred by granting nonsuit on the battery cause of action.
- Viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, a jury could find Daisy’s consent was expressly conditioned on using only family-donated blood and that using general-supply blood exceeded the scope of consent.
- The judgment was reversed as to the battery cause of action and affirmed in all other respects, leaving intact the defense verdict on negligence.

## Legal Principles

- A medical battery occurs when a physician performs a procedure without the patient’s consent or exceeds the scope of the consent given.
- Consent may be limited or conditional; an express condition defines the permissible boundaries of the touching.
- Nonsuit is improper if, crediting plaintiff’s evidence and reasonable inferences, there is substantial evidence that could support a plaintiff’s verdict.
- Negligence and battery are distinct in medical torts: negligence turns on breach of professional duty of care, while battery turns on lack of authorization (including treatment beyond a consent limitation).

## Conclusion

Because the evidence could support a finding that Daisy consented to transfusion only on the condition that family-donated blood be used, the battery theory should have been decided by a jury; the nonsuit was reversed and the negligence defense verdict was otherwise affirmed.


Ashcraft v. King, 278 Cal. Rptr. 900 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)