46 Mich. 160, 9 N.W. 146
Mrs. Roberts, a poor married woman who was a stranger in the vicinity, employed defendant De May as her physician while she was confined in child-bed at her house measuring fourteen by sixteen feet.1
On the morning of January 3, De May visited the plaintiff professionally at her home and found her in the bed sink with a curtain in front of it.2 Later that night, because De May was sick and fatigued from overwork and the roads were bad on a dark and stormy night, he asked Scattergood, a young unmarried man ignorant of the practice of medicine, to accompany him and assist in carrying a lantern, umbrella, and certain articles.3
Upon arriving at the house, De May told the plaintiff's husband that he had fetched a friend along to help carry his things, and the husband said all right with no objection whatever made to Scattergood's presence.4 The defendants ate supper and rested, and when the plaintiff went into labor on the lounge near the stove, Scattergood at De May's request took hold of her hand and held her during a paroxysm of pain.5
The plaintiff believed that Scattergood was a student or a physician, and the defendants did not disclose his true character.6 The plaintiff brought suit against both defendants alleging assault and intrusion upon her privacy, and after trial the case came before the Supreme Court of Michigan on appeal.7
Whether the declaration sufficiently states a cause of action for the introduction of an unprofessional person into the plaintiff's lying-in room during childbirth?8
A declaration is sufficient when it alleges facts showing that a physician wrongfully introduced an unprofessional person into the plaintiff's lying-in room during childbirth.9 The introduction must occur against her desire and with intent to deceive.10 This thereby intrudes upon her privacy without informed consent or necessity.11
Yes. The declaration sets forth that the plaintiff was a poor married woman confined in child-bed who employed De May as her physician. De May wrongfully introduced Scattergood, a young unmarried man ignorant of medicine, into the lying-in room while she was in the pains of parturition, against her desire and intending to deceive her.12 These allegations match the established facts that Mrs. Roberts employed De May at her small house where De May brought Scattergood without disclosing his character and where Scattergood participated by holding her hand during labor.13
The allegations in the declaration therefore state a valid cause of action for the invasion of privacy.14
The declaration sufficiently states a cause of action.15
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the intrusion upon her privacy by a person whose non-professional character was not disclosed to her or her husband?16
A plaintiff is entitled to recover damages when a physician introduces an unprofessional person into the lying-in room without disclosing the person's true character.17 This violates the plaintiff's right to privacy during childbirth.18 Recovery is available even if the person acted properly while present.19
Yes. The plaintiff had a legal right to the privacy of her apartment at such a time.20 The law secures to her this right by requiring others to observe it and to abstain from its violation.21 Dr. De May therefore took an unprofessional young unmarried man with him.22
He introduced and permitted him to remain in the house of the plaintiff when it was apparent that he could hear at least if not see all that was said and done.23 As the jury must have found under the instructions given, this occurred without either the plaintiff or her husband having any knowledge or reason to believe the true character of such third party.24 In obtaining admission at such a time and under such circumstances without fully disclosing his true character, both parties were guilty of deceit.25 The wrong thus done entitles the injured party to recover the damages afterwards sustained from shame and mortification upon discovering the true character of the defendants.26
The plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the intrusion upon her privacy.27
Whether the plaintiff's belief that Scattergood was a physician, together with her husband's consent to his presence, precludes recovery upon discovery of his true character?28
No. Although the plaintiff's husband said all right to Scattergood's presence after De May said he had fetched a friend to help carry his things, the defendants did not disclose his true non-professional character.31 The plaintiff believed Scattergood was a student or physician.32 The established facts show that the plaintiff and her husband were strangers in the vicinity with no prior knowledge of Scattergood.33 The ambiguous remark by De May was not sufficient to put them on guard or remove the presumption that a physician would not bring an unprofessional person to such an occasion.34
The fact that at the time she consented to the presence of Scattergood supposing him to be a physician does not preclude her from maintaining an action and recovering substantial damages upon afterwards ascertaining his true character.35
The plaintiff's belief and her husband's consent do not preclude recovery upon discovery of Scattergood's true character.36