Aiken v. Clary

396 S.W.2d 668 (1965)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
A
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Aiken v. Clary

Missouri Supreme Court
396 S.W.2d 668 (1965)

  • Written by Nicole Gray , JD

Facts

Dr. Clary (defendant) diagnosed Mr. Aiken (plaintiff) with paranoid schizophrenia and recommended electric and insulin shock therapy for treatment. Dr. Clary informed Aiken that the insulin therapy would put him to sleep and that there were risks involved like those associated with anesthesia if Aiken were to overreact to the insulin. After consulting with his wife and family physician, Aiken signed a consent form for Dr. Clary to administer the treatments. Aiken began insulin shock treatments shortly after his diagnosis, and after a series of treatments over 10 days, Aiken went into a coma. Aiken suffered from a delayed awakening from the insulin, which caused permanent brain damage and total disability. Aiken sued Dr. Clary for malpractice, alleging that Dr. Clary negligently failed to inform Aiken of the risks of the therapy. At trial, a specialist in neurology and psychiatry testified on Aiken’s behalf regarding the extent of Aiken’s injuries and regarding the risks involved with the shock treatments. However, the specialist did not testify regarding an acceptable disclosure given Aiken’s circumstance. A jury ruled in favor of Dr. Clary. After being denied a new trial, Aiken appealed. Aiken’s counsel presented an earlier opinion of the court to support the argument that expert testimony was not necessary regarding the disclosure standard.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Finch, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Healthcare Law

Key Terms