Smith v. Welch

265 Kan. 868, 967 P.2d 727 (1998)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Smith v. Welch

Kansas Supreme Court
265 Kan. 868, 967 P.2d 727 (1998)

Facts

Peggy Smith (plaintiff) was injured in a car accident and sued the other driver involved. Smith agreed to undergo an independent medical examination by a doctor chosen by the other party to assess the extent of Smith’s head and neck injuries. This examination was performed by a neurologist, Lauren Welch (defendant). During his examination, Welch asked Smith questions relevant to head and neck injuries. However, Welch also asked Smith questions about her sexual history and her family members’ sexual history. Welch repeatedly told Smith that because he was working for the other side, Smith’s failure to answer his questions would result in Smith not receiving a settlement for her injuries. Welch also performed a physical examination of Smith, during which he asked her to undress and repeatedly placed his hands on Smith’s breasts despite Smith’s attempt to prevent such contact. Smith testified that this examination was unlike any other breast examination that she had undergone. As Welch moved his hands towards Smith’s pubic region, Smith covered the area with her hands, and Welch attempted to move Smith’s hands. At that point, Smith ended that part of the examination. A medical expert opined that performing a breast or a gynecological examination was a departure from standard neurological practice in the assessment of neck and head injuries. Smith sued Welch for committing assault, battery, and an outrageous act. Smith conceded that she had consented to the examination but claimed that Welch had exceeded the scope of a medical examination for head and neck injuries. Smith further contended that even if a breast examination had been required, Welch had not performed such an examination but instead sexually fondled her. The district court granted Welch’s motion for summary judgment, and Smith appealed. Welch argued that he had no duty to Smith, because he had been hired by a third party to perform an independent medical examination.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lockett, 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 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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 832,000 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
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 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