CASE STUDY #1

Judges decisions are customarily written and therefore recorded in books used for legal research. These written decisions are called cases, and the books in which they are published are called case books. These cases are part of the common law. You will read many cases in your study of Hospitality Law. Although at first they may seem difficult to understand you will soon develop the skill necessary to read them with a high level of comprehension. To understand a case you should attempt to identify four elements as you read it:

The facts

The issue

The judges decision

The reasoning supporting the decision.

Conclusion

The facts are those circumstances that gave rise to the lawsuit. The issue is the legal question that the parties have asked the judge to resolve. The decision is the judges response to the issue. The reasoning is the basis and rationale for the decision. After reading the case, consider its implications vis--vis stare decisis, the decision, although involving unknown parties, inform hospitality managers how the law will be applied to their own situations. This enables innkeepers and restaurateurs to predict how the law will be interpreted and to prevent legal disputes before they arise. By understanding the implications of cases, the manager or owner can modify company policies and actions to conform to the law. Conclusion states whether you agree or disagree with the judges decision and why by writing supporting details.

CASE STUDY

Malette v. Shulman (Ont. C.A.), 1990 CanLII 6868 (ON CA)

The plaintiff was in a car accident, was unconscious at the hospital. A nurse found a card indicated that the Plaintiff was a Jehovah's Witness and explicitly stated that under no circumstances was she to be given a blood transfusion. The doctor ignored this information and administered the transfusion anyway, believing that the procedure was medically necessary and that it was his responsibility to ensure the patient received life saving treatment. The plaintiff made a full recovery and then sued the doctor for battery.

The court found for the plaintiff that the Doctor's actions constituted battery. Here, the doctor's right to treat a patient is restricted because of his knowledge, and the doctor violated the patient's rights over her own body by acting contrary to her intentions without authorization. The physician believed it was his professional responsibility to save his patients life and he was not satisfied that the card expressed her current view. Here, the only exception is an emergency situation when immediate treatment is necessary to save one's life. This sets the right to consent by assuming the patient is a reasonable person who would want emergency aid. Patient must be unconscious or unable to make a decision, but a doctor cannot disregard a patient's advance instructions outside of these circumstances. Damages was awarded $20,000 for mental and emotional suffering.