Cotnam v. Wisdom
83 Ark. 601, 1907 Ark. LEXIS 117, 104 S.W. 164 (1907)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a person is unable to contract due to being unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, a contract is implied by law (quasi-contract) for necessary services such as emergency medical care, allowing the provider to recover reasonable compensation.
Facts:
- Mr. Harrison was thrown from a street car, sustaining serious injuries that left him unconscious.
- A bystander who witnessed the accident summoned the appellees, who were physicians, to render aid.
- The physicians performed a difficult surgical operation in an attempt to save Mr. Harrison's life.
- Mr. Harrison never regained consciousness and ultimately died from his injuries.
- Mr. Harrison was a bachelor with an estate valued at approximately $18,500.
Procedural Posture:
- The physicians (appellees) filed a lawsuit against the administrator of Mr. Harrison's estate (appellant) in a trial court to recover compensation for their surgical services.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the court gave the jury a peremptory instruction to find in favor of the physicians.
- The trial court admitted evidence regarding the value of Mr. Harrison's estate and the fact that he was a bachelor whose estate would pass to collateral relatives.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the physicians.
- The administrator of Harrison's estate appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract implied by law, or quasi-contract, arise when physicians render necessary medical services to an unconscious person who is unable to consent, thereby allowing the physicians to recover reasonable compensation from the person's estate?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, C. J.
Yes, a contract implied by law arises, allowing for recovery of reasonable compensation. The court held that while there was no actual contract or meeting of the minds, the law creates a legal fiction known as a quasi-contract or constructive contract to provide a remedy and prevent unjust enrichment. This principle is applied to those incapable of contracting, such as infants or the insane, and extends to individuals rendered unconscious by accident. The law implies a promise to pay for necessaries furnished in good faith, including life-saving medical services. However, the court also held that recovery is limited to reasonable compensation for the services rendered. It was an error to admit evidence of the patient's financial condition, as the services are of the same value whether the patient is a 'prince or pauper.' The legal fiction of a contract cannot be stretched to assume the unconscious patient contemplated their ability to pay as a factor in the service's price.
Concurring - Battle and Wood, JJ.
Yes, recovery under a quasi-contract is appropriate. The concurring justices agreed with the majority that the physicians could recover for their services under a contract-implied-by-law theory and that it was an error to admit evidence that the deceased's estate would go to collateral heirs. However, they disagreed with the majority's conclusion that it was an error to admit evidence of the value of the patient's estate when determining the reasonable value of the services rendered.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in contracts law, solidifying the doctrine of quasi-contract or contracts implied-in-law. It establishes a crucial public policy principle that emergency medical providers can render aid to incapacitated individuals with the expectation of compensation, thereby encouraging assistance in emergencies. The decision carefully distinguishes between recovery based on a true contract, where the parties' means might be a contemplated factor, and recovery based on a legal fiction, which is limited to the objective reasonable value of the services. This ruling sets a precedent for how 'reasonable compensation' is determined in unjust enrichment cases involving necessaries, focusing on the service itself rather than the recipient's ability to pay.
Unlock the full brief for Cotnam v. Wisdom