Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 6 - Commentary on Robinson v. Cutchin

  • from Part III - Intentional Torts
  • Edited by Martha Chamallas, Ohio State University, Lucinda M. Finley, University at Buffalo, State University of New York
  • Book:
    Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Tort Opinions
    Published online:
    28 November 2020
    Print publication:
    10 December 2020, pp 121-146

  • Summary

    Robinson v. Cutchin involved the nonconsensual sterilization of an African-American woman because the doctor thought that she had enough children. Although unconsented to medical treatment presents a traditional tort claim for battery, the trial judge dismissed this claim because he considered the sterilization neither physically harmful nor offensive. The rewritten feminist opinion draws on the history of involuntary sterilization of women of color to conclude that such conduct is inherently outrageous and causes serious physical and emotional harm, and thus should be redressed as both a battery and as intentional infliction of emotional distress, with punitive damages. The feminist opinion highlights the ways the actual judgment distorts both the law and the reality of women’s experience of harm. The accompanying commentary situates this case in the history of racially based involuntary sterilization and both medical and judicial dismissiveness of the seriousness of the harm, and thus sheds light on how tort law has failed to deter this abusive practice.