Hawkins v. McGee
Supreme Court of
84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641.
Facts: McGee is a doctor and Hawkins was his patient. Hawkins paid McGee to perform surgery on his
hand. Hawkins testified that McGee
guaranteed the hand would turn out “100% perfect” or “100% good”. It did not turn out that good, and Hawkins
sued for assumpsit[1]
in trial court in
Issue: What damages ought to be awarded to the defendant: restitution
interest, reliance interest, expectation interest or some combination
thereof?
Rule: The damages that should be awarded are the difference
between the value of what the plaintiff would have received if the contract had
been carried out and the value the plaintiff currently possesses (plus
incidental losses resulting from the contract being breached). This is known as expectation interest,
which means damages shall be awarded such that the plaintiff will be as well
off as he would have been if the contract had not been breached.
Analysis: The court reasons by analogy to the case of a machine
with a warranty. If the warranty is
broken, the plaintiff gets the value they would have received from a fully
working machine minus the value it actually has (plus incidental losses
resulting from failing to comply with the warranty).
The trial court’s
instructions to the jury suggested instead that they award damages based on
pain and suffering plus any injury over and above what the plaintiff had before
the surgery.
The court argued that the
pain and suffering experienced by the plaintiff in the course of the operation
should not be cause for damages because this is pain and suffering the
plaintiff would have been willing to endure to make his hand better had the
surgery been successful. Pain and
suffering doesn’t necessarily measure the value of a good hand or the
difference between that value and the value of the plaintiff’s current hand.
The court also argued that
the jury shouldn’t have been told to award damages based on the hand being made
worse from the operation. The court said
that this part of the damages would be taken into account if the jury had been
instructed to use the correct rule.
Conclusion: The appellate court ruled that the trial court gave
inappropriate instructions to the jury.
The court ordered a new trial where the right jury instructions would be
given.
Note
McGee settled with Hawkins
out of court before the new trial. Then
McGee sued his liability insurance company for his settlement and attorney’s
fees. The trial court ruled in favor of
the insurance company because it said McGee’s insurance policy didn’t cover the
kind of warranty he made to Hawkins.
[1] “An express or implied promise, not under seal, by which one person undertakes to do some act or pay something to another” – Black’s 7th