This HTML5 document contains 43 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n9https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
goldhttp://purl.org/linguistics/gold/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Reibl_v_Hughes
rdf:type
dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase
rdfs:label
Reibl v Hughes
rdfs:comment
Reibl v Hughes [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on negligence, medical malpractice, informed consent, the duty to warn, and causation. The case settled the issue of when a physician may be sued for battery and when it is more appropriate to sue the doctor in negligence. The Court wrote unanimously that "unless there has been misrepresentation or fraud to secure consent to the treatment, a failure to disclose the attendant risks, however serious, should go to negligence rather than to battery." The case also marked the creation of a standard whereby a physician must give the patient sufficient information so that an objective, reasonable person in the patient's position would be able to make an informed choice about a medical procedure.
dcterms:subject
dbc:Canadian_tort_case_law dbc:Medical_lawsuits dbc:Supreme_Court_of_Canada_cases dbc:1980_in_Canadian_case_law dbc:Medical_malpractice
dbo:wikiPageID
3539549
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
727741596
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbc:Medical_malpractice dbr:Battery_(crime) dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Canada dbr:Endarterectomy dbr:Medical_malpractice dbc:Medical_lawsuits dbr:Informed_consent dbc:1980_in_Canadian_case_law dbr:Ontario_Court_of_Appeal dbc:Supreme_Court_of_Canada_cases dbc:Canadian_tort_case_law dbr:Tort
owl:sameAs
freebase:m.09k9bm n9:4tPNb yago-res:Reibl_v_Hughes wikidata:Q7309876
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Infobox_SCC dbt:Portal dbt:Lexum-scc2
dbp:citations
[1980] 2 SCR 880
dbp:ratio
In order to obtain medical consent, physicians must provide the patient with enough information so that an objective, reasonable person in the patient's position could make an informed decision.
dbo:abstract
Reibl v Hughes [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on negligence, medical malpractice, informed consent, the duty to warn, and causation. The case settled the issue of when a physician may be sued for battery and when it is more appropriate to sue the doctor in negligence. The Court wrote unanimously that "unless there has been misrepresentation or fraud to secure consent to the treatment, a failure to disclose the attendant risks, however serious, should go to negligence rather than to battery." The case also marked the creation of a standard whereby a physician must give the patient sufficient information so that an objective, reasonable person in the patient's position would be able to make an informed choice about a medical procedure.
dbp:caseName
Reibl v Hughes
dbp:decidedDate
1980-10-07
dbp:fullCaseName
John Reibl v Robert A. Hughes
dbp:heardDate
1980-06-05
dbp:notparticipating
Ritchie and Estey JJ.
dbp:percuriam
yes
dbp:scc
1980
gold:hypernym
dbr:Decision
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Reibl_v_Hughes?oldid=727741596&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
5019
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Reibl_v_Hughes