Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

Shorter v. Drury

Supreme Court of Washington
695 P.2d 116 (1985)


Doreen and Elmer Shorter (plaintiffs) were Jehovah’s Witness, a faith prohibiting its followers from receiving blood transfusions. When Doreen was pregnant, she consulted with Dr. Robert Drury (defendant), a family practitioner who diagnosed her as having a “missed abortion,” a condition in which a fetus dies and the uterus fails to discharge it. To guard against infection, a dilation and curettage (D and C) was recommended. Of the three commonly-used methods to perform the procedure, Drury chose the method that posed the highest risk of bleeding due to possible puncture from the instrument used. Drury explained the procedure to Doreen, including the risk of bleeding, but failed to advise her of the two alternate methods. A second opinion obtained by Doreen confirmed the procedure as appropriate and warned her of the risk of significant blood loss. At the hospital, the Shorters signed a document releasing the hospital, physicians, and staff from all liability stemming from her refusal to accept blood if needed. During the procedure, Drury lacerated Doreen’s uterus causing her to bleed profusely. Physicians’ repeated attempts to have Doreen, as well as Elmer, consent to a blood transfusion were rejected. Doreen bled to death. Mr. Shorter filed a wrongful death action alleging Drury’s negligence proximately caused Doreen’s death. At trial, the release document was entered into evidence and the jury was instructed on assumption of the risk. The jury found Drury proximately caused Doreen’s death and awarded $412,000 in damages. That amount was reduced by 75 percent because the jury also found that the Shorters “knowingly and voluntarily” assumed the risk that refusing blood transfusions would result in Doreen’s death. Motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict were filed by both parties, and denied by the court. Shorter appealed and Drury cross-appealed, but did not appeal the issue of his negligence.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Dolliver, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 409,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial