Torts
Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 502 P.2d 1, 104 Cal. Rptr. 505 (Cal. 1972)
Study notes for Cobbs v. Grant: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Physicians must disclose material information for informed consent, focusing on what a reasonable patient would deem necessary for their decision.
In Cobbs v. Grant, the California Supreme Court emphasized the importance of informed consent in medical procedures, shifting the standard from a physician-centered one to a patient-centric approach. The court ruled that physicians must disclose material information relevant to a patient's decision-making, aligning with what a reasonable patient would consider essential, rather than relying solely on the practices of the medical community. This case significantly impacts tort law as it establishes that failure to disclose material risks can lead to negligence claims, focusing on the patient’s understanding and decision-making process instead of merely adhering to professional norms.
C for Consent, P for Patient - Patient's perspective is paramount.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Canterbury v. Spence | Canterbury emphasized patient autonomy and further clarified the need for informed consent, expanding on the patient-centered standard set in Cobbs. |
| Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals | Schloendorff centered on the right to consent or refuse treatment, while Cobbs focuses specifically on the adequacy of disclosures made to obtain that consent. |
| Moore v. Regents of the University of California | Moore dealt with the issue of consent in relation to medical research and the use of tissues, while Cobbs addressed standard consent before surgical procedures. |
A patient-centered standard promotes autonomy, ensuring patients can make informed decisions about their health care.
It may undermine physicians' discretion and the established norms of practice, possibly leading to defensive medicine and excessive disclosures.
This case typically appears on exams in relation to the evolution of informed consent standards and the differentiation between battery and negligence in medical malpractice cases.