P was an international passenger on D's boat. While on the boat, a surgeon employed by D gave P a smallpox vaccine.
Without the vaccine, P would have been quarantined for a while.
P held her arm out for the vaccination and said nothing about nothing wanting to be vaccinated.
P later sued D for vaccinating her against her will (assault and battery).
Lower court directed a verdict in favor of D.
MA Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, D not liable.
Where consent to act is not explicitly expressed, may an individual rely on the other party's behavior and overt acts in order to determine whether that party has consented to the individual's conduct?
When consent to act is not explicitly expressed, an individual may rely on the other party's behavior and overt acts in order to determine whether that party has consented to the individual's conduct.
The doctor had a right to assume that the passengers understood the importance of vaccination.
P held her arm out to the doctor and did not tell him that she did not want to be vaccinated.
After the vaccination, P accepted the certificate given to her.
The circumstances did not inform the doctor that P did not want to be vaccinated.
Implied consent requires the party assuming consent to show that the consent was valid based on the surrounding circumstances.
It is the jury's job to determine if the action was within the consent given.