Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital

251 Minn. 427, 88 N.W.2d 186 (1958)

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

Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital

Minnesota Supreme Court
251 Minn. 427, 88 N.W.2d 186 (1958)

Play video

Facts

Bang (plaintiff) complained to Foley (defendant), his doctor, of problems with urination. Foley informed Bang that he was not sure what was causing Bang’s problems, but suggested that Bang be admitted to Charles T. Miller Hospital for the purpose of further examination. Foley explained to Bang the purpose for admission and further explained that a prostate operation would be performed if the examinations showed that it was necessary. The prostate operation involved cutting the spermatic cords, but Bang was never informed of that fact. Though Bang consented to the operation, Foley never explained to Bang what was involved in it. Bang never asked what was entailed in the operation and trusted Foley to perform it correctly. Bang filed suit against Foley and Charles T. Miller Hospital (the hospital) (defendants) alleging damages for an unauthorized operation. After trial, Foley and the hospital filed motions for directed verdict. Those motions were granted. Bang appealed the decision regarding Foley.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gallagher, 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 803,000 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 803,000 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 803,000 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

Torts

Key Terms