Hawkins v. McGee

NAME:
Hawkins (π) v. McGee (Δ), 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (1929) [J. Branch]

PROCEDURE:
Trial court gave instructions to the jury that if followed would allow π to collect damages for pain and suffering. π was awarded $500. Δ appealed.

FACTS:
Δ claimed that he could perform a skin graft on π’s injured hand and “guarantee[d] to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand or a hundred per cent good hand." Δ screwed up the surgery and π sued Δ seeking, among other things, damages for pain and suffering.

ISSUE:
Did the trial court err in its instructions to the jury that if followed would allow π to collect damages for pain and suffering?

HOLDING:
YES. As a result, a new trial was ordered

RULE:
1. The only damages that can be said to come within the terms of a contract are those that the parties must have had in mind when the contract was made (note: not located in the text provided).

REASONING:
1. It’s not necessary to determine whether the argument of the Δ, based upon “common knowledge of the uncertainty which attends all surgical operations,” and the improbably that a surgeon would contract to make a damaged part of the body “one hundred per cent perfect,” would be regarded as conclusive. There are other factors that support the contention of the π.
2. If the jury accepted the theory advanced by π that the Δ sought an opportunity to “experiment on skin grafting,” in which he had little previous experience, there would be a reasonable basis for the further conclusion that he did so with the intention that they should be accepted at their face value, as an inducement for the granting of consent to the operation by π and his father, and there was ample evidence that they were so accepted by them.