Cotnam v Wisdom

Cotnam v Wisdom - their $ 2,000 claim was based on the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Rule: Cotnam v. Wisdom p.103 Sup Ct of Ark (1907) Rj Lea The evidence showed that deceased received fatal injuries in a street car wreck; that while he was unconscious some person summoned Dr. Wisdom to attend him: that Dr. Wisdom called in Dr. Abel, an experienced surgeon, to assist him; that they found that the patient was suffering from a fracture of the temporal and parietal bones, and that it was necessary to perform the operation of trephining; that the patient lived only a short time after the operation, and never recovered consciousness. Two doctors were summoned to render aid to decedent, who had been thrown from a street car. The doctors submitted their claim to the probate court, which allowed a $ 400 claim. They appealed to the circuit court, where the jury awarded $ 650 after the doctors argued to the jury that
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: their $ 2,000 claim was based on the decedent's net worth and the fact that he had died leaving only collateral heirs. The court reversed the circuit court's judgment and remanded the case. The court held that the doctors could recover under an implied contract. Therefore, the jury instruction that the doctors were entitled to compensation based on their rendering professional services to decedent was proper. Neither did the circuit court have to compel the doctors to show the value of their services to the decedent. But the circuit court erred in allowing evidence of the decedent's financial condition, his marital status, or the identity of his heirs. Such evidence was irrelevant and may have been prejudicial. Whether or not an implied contract existed. Reversed and Cause remanded...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Arizona.

Page1 / 2

Cotnam v Wisdom - their $ 2,000 claim was based on the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online