P alleged that D operated on him and that such an operation was unauthorized. P came to D complaining of urinary problems and agreed to a cystoscopic examination. During the examination, D claimed that he had talked to P of his findings and got authorization to do a transurethral prostatic resection. P alleged that D never told him his spermatic cords would be cut. P eventually testified that he expected the doctor to do what was right. P presented his case and D moved for a directed verdict on grounds that P failed to prove any negligence or any cause of action against D. That motion was granted. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.