## Facts

- Anna Mohr consulted Dr. Cornelius Williams for trouble in her right ear; he examined both ears but could not fully diagnose the left ear at the initial visit.
- Dr. Williams diagnosed the right ear as having a perforated drum membrane and a polyp suggesting diseased ossicles and recommended surgery.
- Mohr agreed to an operation on her right ear after consulting her family physician and understood the surgery would be limited to the right ear.
- At the hospital, Mohr was anesthetized; while she was unconscious, Dr. Williams reexamined the left ear and found it in a more serious condition than the right.
- After consulting Mohr’s family physician, and after finding the right ear less serious than expected, Dr. Williams decided to operate on the left ear instead.
- Dr. Williams performed an ossiculectomy on the left ear, removing part of the drum membrane and scraping diseased bone; the procedure was skillfully performed.
- Mohr alleged the left-ear operation impaired her hearing and was unauthorized, constituting assault and battery.
- A jury found for Mohr and awarded $14,322.50; the trial court denied judgment notwithstanding the verdict but granted a new trial on the ground of excessive damages.
- Both parties appealed: Mohr challenged the new-trial order; Dr. Williams challenged the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether a physician commits civil assault and battery by operating on a body part different from the one authorized, while the patient is unconscious, absent an emergency.
2. Whether consent to a proposed operation implies consent to a different operation the physician believes is more necessary.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial based on excessive damages.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that evidence supported liability for an unauthorized operation.
- The court held that surgery performed without a patient’s express or implied consent is wrongful and unlawful; absent such consent, the physician lacks authority to operate.
- The court held Mohr’s consent to right-ear surgery did not imply consent to left-ear surgery, and the record did not establish an emergency justifying proceeding without consent.
- The court affirmed the order granting a new trial on damages, holding that setting aside an excessive verdict rests within the trial court’s discretion absent abuse.

## Legal Principles

- A surgical operation without the patient’s express or implied consent is unlawful and constitutes a civil battery, unless circumstances justify proceeding without consent (such as an emergency).
- In civil battery, intent to injure is not required; liability may be based on an unlawful touching even if done in good faith and with medical skill.
- Professional judgment, benevolent motive, and a successful outcome do not substitute for consent; they may affect damages but do not defeat liability.
- A trial court may order a new trial when it finds the damages excessive; appellate review is deferential and reverses only for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court treated an unconsented operation on a different ear as a battery because the patient authorized only right-ear surgery and no emergency justified left-ear surgery, while also sustaining the trial court’s discretion to order a new trial on excessive damages.


Mohr v. Williams, 95 Minn. 261, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905)