lack Letter
KSupreme Court of Arkansas, 1907draftborradorunverifiedsin verificar

Cotnam v. Wisdom

83 Ark. 601, 104 S.W. 164 (1907)

Surgeons who operated on an unconscious stranger and billed his estate

In one lineEn una línea
A physician who renders emergency services to an unconscious person may recover their reasonable value from his estate under an implied-in-law contract, not based on the patient's wealth.El médico que presta servicios de emergencia a una persona inconsciente puede cobrar su valor razonable a la sucesión por un contrato implícito en la ley, no según la riqueza del paciente.
RuleRegla
Where services are rendered in an emergency to a person unable to consent, the law implies an obligation to pay their reasonable value (quasi-contract); the recipient's ability to pay is not a measure of that value.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
The quasi-contract case assigned Oct. 6 with the professor's quasi-contract overview and exam problem: recovery without any agreement, on an obligation the law implies to prevent unjust enrichment, measured by the reasonable value of the services, not by what the recipient could have paid.
Procedural posturePostura procesal
Physicians sued the administrator of a man who died after emergency surgery; judgment for the physicians; reversed for a new trial on the measure of recovery.

Facts

Harrison was thrown from a streetcar and rendered unconscious; a bystander summoned Drs. Wisdom and Abel, who performed a difficult operation in an attempt to save him. He died without regaining consciousness. The physicians sued his administrator for their fee.

Procedural posture

Judgment for the physicians; reversed and remanded because the jury had been allowed to consider the decedent’s financial condition.

Issue

Whether an obligation to pay arises without consent, and how it is measured.

Holding

Yes, by an implied-in-law contract; the measure is the reasonable value of the services, without regard to the patient’s wealth.

Reasoning

The court explained that quasi-contracts are not contracts at all but duties the law imposes to prevent unjust enrichment, as when a lunatic or an unconscious person receives necessaries. The emergency and the surgeons’ calling justified the implied obligation. But the fee must be what the services were worth, not what a rich patient might pay.

Rule (own words)

No agreement, no promise, still a debt: when the law would be ashamed to let someone keep a benefit for free, it makes them pay what it was worth.

What-ifs

  • The patient was conscious and refused treatment: no recovery; the benefit was forced on him.
  • A neighbor, not a physician, gave first aid and later billed: likely a volunteer; no recovery.
  • The patient had agreed in advance to a fixed fee: express contract governs; quasi-contract is unavailable where a contract covers the subject.

Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables

Is this a contract?
No; the court says so expressly. It is a legal fiction: an obligation imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment, enforced in the form of a contract action.
Why reverse?
The trial court let the jury consider the patient's estate (his wealth) in fixing the fee; the proper measure is the reasonable value of the services for a person in his situation.
What about the officious intermeddler?
A volunteer who confers an unrequested benefit normally cannot recover; the emergency and the professional capacity of the surgeons take the case out of that rule.
quasi-contract (restitution)restitution (interest and remedy)unjust enrichmentimplied-in-law contract (quasi-contract)

AssignedAsignado: 2026-10-06

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Own brief from the public opinion as excerpted in the casebook; verify quotations against the opinion..