Jim Whitney |
|
Case name: |
Cotnam v Wisdom |
|
Court: |
Supreme Court of Arkansas |
|
Citation; Date: |
83 Ark. 601; 104 S.W. 164; 1907 Ark. Lexis 117 |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY |
|||
|
Trial court: |
Appeal court (if
relevant): |
||
|
Plaintiff: |
Wisdom |
Appellant: |
Cotnam |
|
Defendant: |
Cotnam |
Respondent: |
Wisdom |
A.M. Harrison was thrown out of a streetcar and suffered severe injuries. At the scene bystanders summoned F.L. Wisdom to attend him. Once there, Wisdom called George C. Abel to help with the surgery. After administering medical aid, Harrison died as a result of severe head trauma from which he never recovered.
Wisdom charged $2,000.00 to T.T. Cotnam, administrator for Harrison’s estate, for his services provided. Cotnam refused to pay and the issue was taken to court. The probate court granted the sum of $400.00 to Wisdom. Cotnam appealed and the courts awarded the sum of $650.00 to Wisdom to which Cotnam again appealed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
Cotnam is asking that the charges be dismissed since no actual contract was made and no benefit came as a result of the surgery.
The court had three questions to answer (1) was there in fact a contract, (2) should Cotnam still be responsible in paying even though there was no benefit to Harrison, and (3) should the financial condition of the patient be taken in to account when charging a fee?
The courts ruled that although there was no actual contract, there was an implied contract between Harrison and Cotnam. Although Harrison was unable to make a contract, it can be assumed that he would have had he been conscious. The court stated, “In its practical application, it sustains recovery for physicians and nurses who render services for infants, insane persons and drunkards. (2 Page on Contracts, §§ 867, 897, and 906). And services rendered by physicians to persons unconscious or helpless by reason of injury or sickness are in the same situation as those rendered to persons incapable of contracting, such as the classes above described. (Raoul v. Newman, 59 Ga. 408; Meyer v. K. of P., 64 L.R.A. 839.)
The Court referred to Ladd v. Witt, to answer the question of whether or not Wisdom should be allowed to charge for his services even though no benefit arose. The judge quoted, “That is not at all the test. So that a surgical operation be conceived and performed with due skill and care, the price to be paid therefore does not depend upon the result. The event so generally lies with the forces of nature that all intelligent men know and understand that the surgeon is not responsible therefore. In absence of express agreement, the surgeon, who brings to such a service due skill and care earns the reasonable and customary price therefore, whether the outcome be beneficial to the patient or the reverse."
Although it was common practice for physicians to base there fees on the ability of the patients to pay, in this case it was decided that, “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’." As result it was decided that it was not right for the jury to be aware of Harrison’s large estate.
Judgment and cause remanded.
Implied contracts are made to protect emergency services and provide them with adequate compensation for services rendered. As long as medical services are rendered by professional, skillful people, implied contracts provide medical professionals with guaranteed compensation regardless of the outcome. If this were not the case, there would be no incentive to help the unconscious or severely wounded, as compensation would not be guaranteed. Implied contracts are the law’s answer to protecting the parties involved when bargaining is impossible. These contracts extend not only to the severely wounded but also to infants, drunks, and people unable to make decisions for themselves.
The court considers reasonable costs but not ability to pay. The court considers the value of the service rendered to be equivalent regardless of the wealth of the beneficiary.