Case Analysis: Malette v. Shulman (Ont. C.A.) - Hospitality Law

This case study examines Malette v. Shulman (Ont. C.A.), a significant case in hospitality law. The case involves a Jehovah's Witness who, after a car accident, received a blood transfusion despite having a card explicitly stating her refusal. The doctor, believing it was medically necessary, administered the transfusion. The court addressed the issue of whether the doctor's actions were justified, considering the patient's rights and the emergency situation. The judge ruled that while the doctor's actions were performed in an emergency, they constituted a violation of the patient's rights, thereby committing battery. The decision considered precedents like Werth v. Taylor, where similar circumstances were not considered battery due to the emergency. The case highlights the importance of respecting a person's will, especially regarding medical treatments, and the consideration of family consent when the patient cannot provide it. The study analyzes the facts, the legal issue, the judge's decision, the reasoning, and the case's conclusion.

University
Case Law
Malette v. Shulman (Ont. C.A.), 1990 CanLII 6868 (ON CA)
Student Credentials
1/21/2020

Case Law 1
Malette v. Shulman
(Ont. C.A.), 1990 CanLII 6868 (ON CA)
Facts:
1. The Nurse found out the card that stated that the person was Jehova’s witness.
2. It was clearly mentioned on that card that he was not to be provided blood transfusion
even if required.
3. The doctor carried out his medical duties as were necessary and provided the
transfusion.
Issue:
The issue here at hand is that whether the doctor’s decision of providing transfusion
of blood at the hour of emergency was right or not.
Judge’s decision:
As per the judge’s decision, the action taken then was under the emergency situation
and hence, shall be allowed as it is in the best interest of the person or the patient. While, it
was also taken into consideration that, the actions of the doctor constituted the violation of
the patient’s rights hence, the battery was committed by the doctor.
The reasons supporting the decision:
A similar case took place in 1991, when in the case of Werth v. Taylor the plaintiff
suffered a similar situation, while in this case it was not considered an act of battery on part
of the doctor as the situation was an emergency one (Zittrain, 2019).
Conclusion:
The law works in the best interest of a person in this case (Hoffman, 2016). As far as
the Jehovah’s Witnesses are concerned, there are specific mentions in the prior cases by

Case Law 2
which it can be concluded that the consideration of a person’s will is necessary or at least
considering the family’s consent is necessary where the person in not able to give consent
(Kisilevsky, Stobart, Roland, & Flexman, 2016).

Case Law 3
Bibliography
Hoffman, A. (2016). Jehovah’s Witness parents’ refusal of blood transfusions: Ethical
considerations for psychologists. Journal of health psychology, 1556-1565.
Kisilevsky, A. E., Stobart, L., Roland, K., & Flexman, A. M. (2016). Spine tumor resection
among patients who refuse blood product transfusion: a retrospective case series.
Journal of clinical anesthesia, 434-440.
Zittrain, J. (2019). Werth v. Taylor -- "The Blood-Transfusion-Refusing Jehovah's Witness".
Retrieved January 21, 2020, from Harvard Law:
https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/2910