Bitting v. . Goss

Clarkson, J. Tbe question presented on tbis appeal: “Is an infant living with, bis father liable for medical services where such services were uncontradicted but were necessary in an emergency and' the infant recovers damages for the injuries which made the services necessary, although the father also recovers for his own expenses (including hospital and medical) and damages? We think so. Thaddeus Goss, by his next friend T. E. Goss, recovered a judgment against Warren E. Williams for $3,000 and on appeal to this Court no error was found in the trial in the Superior Court. 196 N. C., 213. After paying the expenses of the litigation the balance of the $3,000 was paid to defendant Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, as guardian. T. E. Goss, the father of Thaddeus Goss recovered a judgment in the sum of $900, and in the complaint T. E. Goss alleged “as his cause of action and expense, including hospital and medical expenses incurred and the loss of the services of Thaddeus Goss, resulting from the said injuries to Thaddeus Goss.” The judgment has been paid in full. It now appears that the father T. E. Goss “has at all times and still refuses to pay the same or any part thereof.” That is the bill of the plaintiff physician. It goes without saying that the father was liable to plaintiff the physician for the services rendered his infant son. We think, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that the infant is also liable. The defendants say in their brief: “In good conscience and equity it ought to have been collected out of the father when he recovered his judgment in a substantial amount for this very obligation.” We think this should have been done and the father liable to the infant, but from the record it may be he is insolvent. Thaddeus Goss, when injured, for which recovery was had, was about 7 or 8 years of age. He was “seriously injured suffering a broken leg and other injuries.” He was taken to Watts Hospital and there treated by the plaintiff, Dr. N. D. Bitting, who rendered to him certain medical and surgical services over a long period of time. It is admitted that the charges for the services rendered by plaintiff were fair and reasonable. Defendants contend that in the case of Cole v. Wagoner, 197 N. C., 692, the recovery by the infant included the hospital bill. The decision in that case went further — -at p. 698, we find: “It was an emergency, and quick action had to be taken. During the period of treatment the father paid for no hospital, medical or surgical treatment for the infant. It seems that he was either unable, at least he did not provide for the infant. The circumstances were peculiar. The father did not provide *428 this attention necessary to save his life and usefulness — the hospital did. The infant now has an estate, and it is unthinkable that the guardian of the infant should not pay the reasonable expense for saving the child’s life and usefulness. . . . (p. 699.) The amount of recovery is bottomed on quantum meruit or reasonable worth of services.” In Page on the Law of Contracts, 3rd vol. part sec. 1521, p. 2602, speaking to the subject, we find: “A case in which considerations of humanity control, and enable one who has rendered services without request to recover therefor, is found where medical or surgical attention is rendered to one who is injured or taken ill so that he is unconscious and unable either to request or forbid the rendition of such services. In eases of this sort, the courts are confronted with the alternative of requiring the injured person to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered to him, or of saying that all who render services do so as a matter of charity or in reliance upon the generosity of the person for whom such services are rendered. While there is little authority upon this question, from the nature of the case it is held that the interest of the person who is injured requires the law to impose a liability upon him for reasonable compensation for such medical and surgical services.” In the present case the plaintiff physician rendered services in an emergency and to preserve human life. We think the Cole case, supra, applicable to the present case. In that case the authorities are set forth in full. The judgment below is Affirmed.