Case brief
| Case name: | Cotnam v. Wisdom |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Citation; Date: | 83 Ark. 601; 104 S.W. 164; 1907 |
|
PROCEDURAL HISTORY |
|||
| Trial court: | Appeal court (for appeal cases only): | ||
| Plaintiff: | Wisdom - doctor | Appellant: | Cotnam |
| Defendant: | Cotnam - administrator for estate | Respondent: | Wisdom |
|
|||
| Facts of the case: | |
| F. L.
Wisdom and George C. Abel presented a claim against the estate of A. M. Harrison,
deceased, of which T. T. Cotnam is administrator, for $ 2,000 on account of surgical
attention to the deceased, who was killed by being thrown from a street car. The probate court allowed the account in the sum of $ 400, and the administrator appealed to the circuit court. The evidence showed that deceased received fatal injuries in a street car wreck; that while he was unconscious some person summoned Dr. Wisdom to attend him: that Dr. Wisdom called in Dr. Abel, an experienced surgeon, to assist him; that they found that the patient was suffering from a fracture of the temporal and parietal bones [side and back of head], and that it was necessary to perform the operation of trephining [cutting out circular sections]; that the patient lived only a short time after the operation, and never recovered consciousness. Dr. Abel testified, over defendant's objection, that the charge of $ 2,000 was based on the result of inquiry as to the financial condition of deceased's estate. It was further proved, over defendant's objection that deceased was a bachelor, and that his estate, which amounted to about $ 18,500, including $ 10,000 of insurance, would go to collateral heirs. Various physicians testified as to the customary fees of doctors in similar cases, and fixed the amount at various sums ranging from $ 100 to $ 2,000. There was also evidence that the ability of the patient to pay is usually taken into consideration by surgeons in fixing their fee. At the plaintiffs' request the court charged the jury as follows: "1. If you find from the evidence that plaintiffs rendered professional services as physicians and surgeons to the deceased... then you are instructed that plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the estate ... such sum as you may find from the evidence is a reasonable compensation for the services rendered. "2. The character and importance of the operation, the responsibility resting upon the surgeon performing the operation, his experience and professional training, and the ability to pay of the person operated upon, are elements to be considered by you in determining what is a reasonable charge for the services performed by plaintiffs in the particular case." |
|
|
|
| Remedy sought: | Verdict for $ 650 was returned in plaintiffs' favor. Defendant has appealed. |
|
|
| Court opinion (including key issues and arguments): | |
| Excerpt
from prior case: the ground of an implied contract; and by this is not meant, as the
defendant's counsel seems to suppose, an actual contract--that is, an actual meeting of
the minds of the parties, an actual, mutual understanding, to be inferred from language,
acts and circumstances by the jury--but a contract and promise, said to be implied by the
law, where, in point of fact, there was no contract, no mutual understanding, and so no
promise. "The evidence of an actual contract is generally to be found, either in some writing made by the parties, or in verbal communications which passed between them, or in their acts and conduct considered in the light of the circumstances of each particular case. A contract implied by law, on the contrary, rests upon no evidence. It has no actual existence; it is simply a mythical creation of the law. The laws says that it shall be taken that there was a promise when, in point of fact, there was none. Of course, this is not good logic, for the obvious and sufficient reason that it is not true. It is a legal fiction, resting wholly for its support on a plain legal obligation and a plain legal right. If it were true, it would not be a fiction.... The common law supplies no action of duty, as it does of assumpsit [an action to recover damages for breach of a contract] and trespass; and hence the somewhat awkward contrivance of this fiction to apply the remedy of assumpsit where there is no true contract, and no promise to support it." The court was therefore right in giving the instruction in question. 2. The defendant sought to require the plaintiff to prove, in addition to the value of the services, the benefit, if any, derived by the deceased from the operation, and alleges error in the court refusing to so instruct the jury. The court was right in refusing to place this burden upon the physicians. ... "In absence of express agreement, the surgeon, who brings to such a service due skill and care earns the reasonable and customary price therefor, whether the outcome be beneficial to the patient or the reverse." 3. The court permitted to go to the jury the fact that Mr. Harrison was a bachelor, and that his estate would go to his collateral relatives, and also permitted proof to be made of the value of the estate, which amounted to about $ 18,500, including $ 10,000 from accident and life insurance policies. ... the court is of the opinion that the financial condition of a patient cannot be considered where there is no contract and recovery is sustained on a legal fiction which raises a contract in order to afford a remedy which the justice of the case requires. "The cure or amelioration of disease is as important to a poor man as it is to a rich one, and, prima facie at least, the services rendered the one are of the same value as the same services rendered to the other." There was evidence in this case proving that it was customary for physicians to graduate their charges by the ability of the patient to pay.... While the law may admit such evidence as throwing light upon the contract and indicating what was really in contemplation when it was made, yet a different question is presented when there is no contract to be ascertained or construed, but a mere fiction of law creating a contract where none existed in order that there might be a remedy for a right. This fiction merely requires a reasonable compensation for the services rendered. The services are the same, be the patient prince or pauper, and for them the surgeon is entitled to fair compensation for his time, service and skill. It was, therefore, error to admit this evidence and to instruct the jury in the 2nd instruction that in determining what was a reasonable charge they could consider the "ability to pay of the person operated upon." |
|
|
|
| Disposition of case: | |
| While this
verdict is no higher than some of the evidence would justify, yet it is much higher than
some of the other evidence would justify, and hence it is impossible to say that this was
a harmless error. Judgment is reversed and cause remanded. |
|
|
|
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CASE |
| Efficiency/incentive issues discussed in the court opinion: |
|
| Other efficiency/incentive issues relevant to the case: |
|
| Assessment of the economic consequences of the court decision: |