Kennedy v. Parrott

243 N.C. 355, 90 S.E.2d 754 (1956)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
K
From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kennedy v. Parrott

North Carolina Supreme Court
243 N.C. 355, 90 S.E.2d 754 (1956)

Play video

Facts

Dr. Fountain Parrott (defendant), a surgeon, diagnosed Phoebe Kennedy (plaintiff) with appendicitis and recommended surgery. Kennedy agreed to the surgery. During surgery, Parrott discovered cysts on Kennedy’s ovaries and punctured them, which is medically indicated because such cysts can grow and become dangerous. After surgery, Kennedy developed phlebitis. Parrott informed Kennedy that, while puncturing the cysts, he had cut a blood vessel and caused the phlebitis. Parrott additionally told another doctor that he had caused the phlebitis. Parrott recommended that Kennedy visit another hospital and agreed to pay the bill. Another doctor operated on the phlebitis for the purpose of trying “to correct the damage that was done.” Kennedy sued Parrott for negligence, but provided no real evidence of damages or bad judgment on the part of Parrott. Expert witnesses testified that puncturing the cysts was medically indicated. Parrott moved for involuntary nonsuit. The trial court granted Parrott’s motion. Kennedy appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, resting her theory of recovery on the claim that Parrott had committed a battery or trespass on the person when he exceeded the scope of her consent during the operation, rather than a negligence theory.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Barnhill, C.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 790,000 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 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 790,000 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
  • 46,200 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

Related Videos