Spencer v. Goodill
2011 Del. LEXIS 179
| Del. | 2011Background
- July 2007, Dr. Goodill performed bronchoscopy with transbronchial biopsy on Muriel Stewart; he did not recall exact risk disclosure but testified he would have described bleeding, pneumothorax, and brief ventilator use; Stewart was not told of a 1 in 1000 death risk and died from the procedure; Spencer, as administratrix and individual, sued under 18 Del. C. § 6852 for lack of informed consent; jury found no causation; Superior Court entered judgment for Goodill; issue on appeal is causation under the informed consent statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether causation must be proven for informed consent claims | Spencer argues no causation proof is required. | Goodill maintains causation not required by statute. | Proximate causation required to prove claim. |
| Whether the statute eliminatess proximate-causation requirement | Plain language eliminates need to prove causation. | Statutory scheme read with chapter 68 requires causation. | Statutory reading does not remove causation requirement. |
| Role of proximate-cause assessment—objective standard | Reasonable-person standard should be objective. | Court should follow conventional proximate-cause analysis. | Jury may consider whether a reasonable person would have proceeded, not just statute language. |
| Validity of Civil Pattern Jury Instruction 7.2A | Instruction accurately states elements. | Instruction not binding authority. | Pattern instruction not independently controlling; court may revise. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barriocanal v. Gibbs, 697 A.2d 1172 (Del. 1997) (causation not issue where standard-of-care evidence remains)
- Culver v. Bennett, 588 A.2d 1094 (Del. 1991) (negligence elements in informed-consent context)
- Russell v. K-Mart Corp., 761 A.2d 1 (Del. 2000) (utilized to assess jury instruction quality)
- Barriocanal v. Gibbs, 697 A.2d 1169 (Del. 1997) (discusses standard-of-care and informed-consent duties)