Torts are defined as a wrongful act, that results in injury to another person or another persons property or reputationThere are different types of torts: Intentional as the name implies, is a wrongful, premeditated action that causes injury Negligence: is unintentional failure to do what a reasonably careful person would do under the circumstances.Strict liability: is incurred when a person commits a wrongful act that poses a high risk of harm to others but did not do so intentionally or out of negligenceResearch$/$Read the case of Schloendorff v$.$ Society of New York Hospital $(1914).$ In what ways is this an "Intentional tort"? What are the facts in this case? What is your opinion on this case? How else can "intentional torts" occur in a healthcare institution? $($Give examples$)$

Schloendorff v$.$ Society of New York Hospital $(1914)$

Facts edit In January $1908,$ Mary Schloendorff, also known as Mary Gamble$$an elocutionist from San Francisco$[2]$was admitted to New York Hospital to evaluate and treat a stomach disorder. Some weeks into her stay at the hospital, the house physician diagnosed a fibroid tumor. The visiting physician recommended surgery, which Schloendorff adamantly declined. She consented to an examination under ether anesthesia. During the procedure, the doctors performed surgery to remove the tumor. Afterwards, Schloendorff developed gangrene in the left arm, ultimately leading to the amputation of some fingers. Schloendorff blamed the surgery, and filed suit.$[3]$ Judgment edit The Court found that the operation to which the plaintiff did not consent constituted medical battery. Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote in the Court's opinion: Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages. This is true except in cases of emergency where the patient is unconscious and where it is necessary to operate before consent can be obtained. Schloendorff, however, had sued the hospital itself, not the physicians.$[1]$ For this reason, the Court found that a non$-$profit hospital could not be held liable for the actions of its employees, analogizing to the principle of charitable immunity.$[1]$ Significance edit The idea that a non$-$profit hospital could not be sued for actions of its employees became a principle that became known as the "Schloendorff rule." The Court would later reject the "Schloendorff rule" in the $1957$ decision of Bing v$.$ Thunig.