Barber v. Superior Court
California District Court of Appeal
147 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484 (1983)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Following a surgical procedure, Clarence Herbert suffered a cardio-respiratory arrest while in the recovery room. A team of physicians, including Barber (defendant), were able to revive Herbert and place him on life support. Over the following three days, it was determined that Herbert suffered permanent brain damage, leaving him in a permanent vegetative, coma-like state. Herbert’s physicians informed his family that Herbert’s chances for recovery were very poor. Herbert’s family drafted a written request to hospital personnel requesting that all life-support equipment be removed. Barber and another physician complied with the family’s request and removed the respirator and other life-sustaining equipment. Herbert continued to breathe on his own, but showed no other signs of improvement. After two more days had elapsed, the physicians consulted Herbert’s family and subsequently removed the intravenous tubes providing Herbert with hydration and nutrition. Herbert later died. Barber and the other physician were charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder which a magistrate dismissed. The superior court set aside the magistrate’s order and reinstated the complaint. Barber and the other physician then petitioned the court of appeal for review of the superior court’s decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Compton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
