The defendant, attempting to heal the plaintiff, left him blind in one eye. The plaintiff has sued in trespass, a forerunner of today's tort action. The defendant made a procedural argument, claiming that the plaintiff should have brought an action of covenant. Issues: Did the plaintiff bring the wrong type of suit? Assuming the defendant's care was defective, could he be liable in any type of action? Holding: The court ignores the procedural point and reaches the merits. It holds that because the plaintiff voluntarily submitted himself to the defendant's care, the latter cannot be liable, even if his conduct caused the harm. The court distinguishes a deliberate attack, which would be actionable, from this accidental harm, where it finds no liability. More importantly, the court bases its judgment on a previous medical case involving accidental death. That case was dismissed, so this one should be as well: precedent begins to take hold. 1.Question: What is a procedural argument? 2. Question: Why did the defendant's attorney make a procedural argument? 3. Question: Is it good to allow procedural arguments? 4. Question: In a lawsuit today, would the plaintiff need to demonstrate that the defendant deliberately harmed him?