Hawkins v. McGee
146 A. 641 · Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
Facts
The plaintiff, who had scar tissue on his right hand from a severe burn received nine years prior, sought treatment from the defendant, a doctor. Before an operation to remove the scar tissue and graft skin, the defendant allegedly told the plaintiff and his father, "I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand." The defendant had repeatedly solicited the opportunity to perform the operation, possibly to experiment with skin grafting. Relying on this promise, the plaintiff and his father consented to the operation. The operation did not result in a "perfect hand," and the plaintiff's hand was not improved as promised.
Procedural history
The case was tried before a jury, which received instructions on damages to which the defendant excepted. The trial court later set aside part of the jury's verdict, assuming it applied the same erroneous rule of damages. This court is reviewing the trial court's actions regarding the jury instructions and is ordering a new trial.
Issue
1. Whether the defendant doctor's statement, "I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand," constituted a contractual warranty. 2. What is the correct measure of damages for a breach of contract in a case where a doctor guarantees a specific surgical outcome.
Holding
1. The question of whether the doctor's statement constituted a contractual warranty was properly submitted to the jury. 2. The trial court's instruction on damages was erroneous; the correct measure of damages is the difference between the value of the promised perfect hand and the value of the hand in its actual condition after the operation.
Rule
A statement can constitute a contractual warranty if a reasonable person would understand it as an intention to enter into a contractual relation, rather than merely an expression of opinion or prediction. Factors like repeated solicitation and potential experimentation can support the intent to warrant. The measure of damages for breach of contract is to put the plaintiff in as good a position as if the contract had been performed (expectation interest). For a breach of warranty in a surgical contract, damages are the difference between the value of the promised outcome and the actual value of the outcome, plus foreseeable incidental losses. Pain and suffering inherent to the operation are not recoverable as damages for breach of contract.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.