Greenspan v. Slate
97 A.2d 390, 1953 N.J. LEXIS 262, 12 N.J. 426 (1953)
Rule of Law:
Parents are legally obligated to provide necessary medical care for their minor children, and if they fail to do so, a third party who supplies such necessaries in an emergency may recover the reasonable value thereof from the parents under a quasi-contractual obligation imposed by law.
Facts:
- Barbara Slate, a 17-year-old, injured her foot while playing basketball at high school.
- Within two or three days, Barbara's foot became exceedingly swollen, conspicuously discolored, and she could walk on it only with great difficulty and pain.
- Barbara's parents, believing the injury was nothing more than a sprain, declined to provide her with medical aid.
- Mr. Garfield, an attorney, discovered Barbara's plight by chance when she was visiting his home with his housekeeper’s son.
- Mr. Garfield promptly sent Barbara to Dr. Sidney Greenspan, who diagnosed a fractured foot bone via X-ray plates and applied a cast.
- Barbara wore the cast for about a month, using crutches, and her parents were aware of her condition and the medical treatment she was receiving.
- Dr. Greenspan testified that permanent injury would have ensued had Barbara not received proper medical care at the time.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Sidney Greenspan, through his attorney Mr. Garfield, brought suit against Barbara Slate's parents in the trial court for the cost of medical services.
- At the end of the plaintiffs' case, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, on the ground that Dr. Greenspan had acted without any express authorization from the defendants and that the proofs were insufficient to establish an implied authorization.
- The Appellate Division of the Superior Court, considering itself bound by earlier decisions in New Jersey courts, reluctantly affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification because of the public importance of the question presented.
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 the failure of parents to provide necessary medical care for their minor child in an emergency create a quasi-contractual obligation for them to pay a third party who furnishes such care, even in the absence of an express or implied-in-fact contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Vanderbilt, C. J.
Yes, parents are legally obligated to pay for necessaries furnished to their minor child in an emergency, even without an express or implied-in-fact contract, because the law imposes a quasi-contractual obligation. The Court rejected the antiquated common law rule, which drastically restricted the enforcement of a parent's duty to provide necessaries to mere moral obligation or agency-in-fact, in favor of the more equitable principle recognized by Chancery courts and the majority of American jurisdictions. It found that the common law inadequately addressed situations where parents neglect their children's vital needs, especially in emergencies, leading to anomalous outcomes where civil recovery was denied despite criminal statutes punishing such neglect. Citing the Restatement of Law of Restitution §§ 112, 113, and 114, the Court held that when a third party, acting unofficiously (not as a meddler) and with intent to charge, supplies immediately necessary services to prevent serious bodily harm or suffering due to a parent's failure to perform their non-contractual duty, restitution is warranted. The court noted the parents' awareness of the cast and crutches, and Barbara's return to the doctor for cast removal, demonstrating they retained the benefit of the services. All necessary elements were present to impose the legal obligation on the parents.
Analysis:
This case significantly advanced the legal understanding of parental obligations in New Jersey, shifting from a narrow common law view (requiring express or implied-in-fact contract) to a broader equitable one based on quasi-contract. It ensures that children in need, particularly in emergencies, receive necessary medical care without third parties having to prove a direct agreement with neglectful parents. The decision prioritizes public policy and humanitarian concerns over strict contractual formalities, aligning New Jersey law with the majority American view and principles of restitution. It establishes that the law will enforce natural duties when they become legally necessary, especially to protect vulnerable individuals, and provides a crucial remedy where none existed at common law.
