Hawkins v. McGee

Notable Items:

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Plaintiff / Appellant / Petitioner's Claim(s):

Defendant / Appellee / Respondent's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Material Facts:

• A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

• Defendant’s motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict on the count in assumpsit were denied, and the defendant excepted.
• The defendant seasonably moved to set aside the verdict upon the grounds that it was:
• (1) contrary to the evidence;
• (2) against the weight of the evidence;
• (3) against the weight of the law and evidence; and
• (4) because the damages awarded by the jury were excessive. [remittur]
• The court denied the motion upon the first three grounds, but found that the damages were excessive,
• and made an order that the verdict be set aside, unless the plaintiff elected to remit all in excess of $500.
• The plaintiff having refused to remit, the verdict was set aside “as excessive and against the weight of the evidence,” and the plaintiff excepted.

Rationale

Majority Opinion

• A full description of the rationale is available below

?? concur in part, dissent in part (??)

?? dissent (??)

Full Recounting of Facts

• The operation in question consisted in the removal of a considerable quantity of scar tissue from the palm of the plaintiff’s right hand and the grafting of skin taken from the plaintiff’s chest in place thereof.
• “Three or four days, not over four; then the boy can go home and it will be just a few days when he will go back to work with a good hand.”
• The above statements could only be construed as expressions of opinion or predictions as to the probable duration of the treatment and plaintiff’s resulting disability
• and the fact that these estimates were exceeded would impose no contractual liability upon the defendant.
• “I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand or a hundred per cent good hand.”
• ... the jury was permitted to consider two elements of damage: (1) Pain and suffering due to the operation; and (2) positive ill effects of the operation upon the plaintiff’s hand.
• Authority for any specific rule of damages in cases of this kind seems to be lacking, ... the foregoing instruction was erroneous.
• “By ‘damages,’ as that term is used in the law of contracts, is intended compensation for a breach, measured in the terms of the contract.”
• “As a general rule, the measure of the vendee’s damages is the difference between the value of the goods as they would have been if the warranty as to quality had been true, and the actual value at the time of the sale, including gains prevented and losses sustained, and such other damages as could be reasonably anticipated by the parties as likely to be caused by the vendor’s failure to keep his agreement, and could not by reasonable care on the part of the vendee have been avoided.”
• A list of the material facts is available above

Majority Full Argument

• The core of the rationale is available above