Brief Fact Summary.Plaintiff was a passenger aboard one of Defendants ships. She was vaccinated while on the ship, and suffered from complications resulting in injury. She sued for assault and negligence.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.When consent is used as a defense to an assault action, the totality of the circumstances must be considered, but only overt acts and outward manifestations may demonstrate such consent or lack thereof.

Facts.Plaintiff was given a vaccination while aboard on of Defendants steamships. Plaintiff suffered blistering and ulceration thereafter, and alleged this was due to the vaccination. Plaintiff had presented herself to Defendants surgeon in the quarantine area and did not object when he indicated his intention to vaccinate her. Nevertheless, she sued for assault and negligence. The trial court directed a verdict for Defendant on the basis of consent.

Issue.Did the trial court err in directing a verdict for Defendant on the basis of consent?

Held.No. The judgment was affirmed. When ones overt acts and outward manifestations of intent indicate consent to physical contact in light of the surrounding circumstances, the making of such physical contact is consensual and therefore lawful.