## Facts

- Mary E. Schloendorff, an adult patient, was admitted to the Society of the New York Hospital in 1908 for a stomach disorder.
- Hospital physicians identified a lump later found to be a fibroid tumor, and a visiting surgeon advised an operation.
- Schloendorff testified she consented only to an examination under ether and expressly refused any operation.
- While she was anesthetized, surgeons removed the tumor.
- After the procedure, Schloendorff developed gangrene in her left arm, leading to amputation of several fingers and prolonged suffering.
- Schloendorff sued only the hospital (not the surgeons), alleging liability for the nonconsensual operation.

## Issues

1. Whether performing an operation without a competent adult patient’s consent constitutes an actionable tort (assault/battery), absent an emergency.
2. Whether a charitable hospital may be held vicariously liable for physicians’ and nurses’ torts committed in treating patients.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the hospital.
- The court stated that a surgeon who operates without the patient’s consent commits an assault and is liable in damages, except in emergencies when the patient is unconscious and immediate action is necessary before consent can be obtained.
- The court held the hospital, as a charitable institution, was not liable for the alleged unauthorized operation by physicians and nurses, rejecting respondeat superior on the facts presented.
- The court also found no independent basis to treat the hospital as a joint tortfeasor where administrators, acting in good faith and without notice of refusal, provided surgical facilities.

## Legal Principles

- A competent adult has the right to decide what is done to their own body; nonconsensual surgery is an intentional tort (assault/battery), regardless of the care used in performing it.
- An emergency exception may permit treatment without consent when the patient is unconscious and immediate intervention is necessary before consent can be obtained.
- Under the rule applied, a charitable hospital was not vicariously liable for torts of physicians and nurses in patient treatment where the relationship was not treated as master–servant for respondeat superior purposes.
- Absent notice to hospital administration and absent a direct institutional wrong, providing facilities for an operation ordered by physicians did not make the hospital a joint tortfeasor.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal against the hospital while articulating a central autonomy principle: nonemergency surgery without a competent patient’s consent is an actionable assault; however, the charitable hospital was not held vicariously or directly liable for the physicians’ acts on the record presented.


Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914)