Coyne v. Campbell
11 N.Y.2d 372 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, a plaintiff in a personal injury action may not recover damages for the value of medical services rendered gratuitously, as damages are limited to pecuniary losses actually incurred or for which a legal obligation to pay exists.
Facts:
- On July 5, 1957, a vehicle driven by the defendant struck the rear of an automobile operated by the plaintiff, a practicing physician and surgeon.
- The plaintiff sustained a whiplash injury from the collision.
- Plaintiff received medical treatment, physiotherapy, and care from his professional colleagues and his own nurse.
- These services were provided gratuitously as a professional courtesy, and the plaintiff incurred no out-of-pocket expenses or legal obligation to pay for them.
- The physiotherapy treatments from his nurse were performed during her regular office hours, for which she received her normal salary without additional compensation from the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in a New York trial court to recover for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
- During the trial, the court ruled that the value of gratuitously rendered medical services was not a proper item of damages and excluded evidence of their value.
- A judgment was entered based on the jury's verdict, which did not include compensation for the free medical care.
- The plaintiff appealed from the judgment, challenging the trial court's exclusion of this evidence, and the case ultimately reached the New York Court of Appeals for a final decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plaintiff in a personal injury action entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical and nursing services that were rendered to him gratuitously?
Opinions:
Majority - Froessel, J.
No, a plaintiff is not entitled to recover the value of medical services rendered gratuitously. The court reaffirmed the long-standing rule from Drinkwater v. Dinsmore, which holds that a plaintiff can only recover for pecuniary losses they actually paid or were legally bound to pay. The court distinguished this case from the collateral source rule applied in Healy v. Rennert, where benefits like insurance are recoverable because the plaintiff paid consideration for them. Here, the services were wholly gratuitous. Allowing recovery would provide a windfall to the plaintiff rather than compensating for a loss, contradicting the principle that tort damages must be compensatory, not punitive. Furthermore, the court deferred to the Legislature, which had recently considered and declined to abrogate the Drinkwater rule, stating that such a policy decision rests with the legislative branch.
Dissenting - Fuld, J.
Yes, a plaintiff should be entitled to recover the reasonable value of gratuitously rendered medical services. The dissent argued that the collateral source doctrine should prevent a wrongdoer from benefiting from payments or services received by the victim from a third party. The defendant's liability should not be reduced by the fortuitous circumstance that the plaintiff's colleagues provided services for free. The intent of the providers was to benefit the injured plaintiff, not the tortfeasor. The dissent found no logical distinction between benefits from an insurance plan paid for by the plaintiff and benefits received as a professional courtesy, concluding the court-made Drinkwater rule is 'unfair, illogical and unduly complex' and should be overturned.
Concurring - Desmond, C.J.
No, a plaintiff cannot recover for services for which he paid nothing. The concurrence stressed that damages in tort cases must be purely compensatory. Since the plaintiff did not pay for the medical services, he suffered no financial loss to be compensated. Allowing recovery would unjustly enrich the plaintiff. While denying recovery results in a 'windfall of sorts' to the defendant, the established legal principle is to avoid unjust enrichment for the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This case solidifies a significant limitation on the collateral source rule in New York, establishing a clear distinction between benefits for which a plaintiff has paid consideration (like insurance) and those received gratuitously. The decision entrenches the principle that damages must be strictly compensatory for actual financial loss, rejecting the majority rule in other jurisdictions that allows recovery for the value of donated services. It also serves as a strong example of judicial restraint, with the court explicitly deferring to the legislature's policy-making role, even in the face of criticism that the existing rule is outdated and illogical. This precedent means that in New York, a tortfeasor's liability can be significantly reduced if the victim receives free care from family, friends, or charitable sources.
Unlock the full brief for Coyne v. Campbell