Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1 — John Shaqi
Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1Witthaus, R. A. (Rudolph August)
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1
Witthaus, R. A. (Rudolph August)
Medical jurisprudence; Poisons; Toxicology
_Liability to Pay for Services._—An important matter for physicians
and surgeons is the question as to who is responsible, or liable to pay
for their services. If there is an express contract this question does
not arise; but in most instances the person performing the services
renders them upon call, and it is necessary for him to understand his
legal right to recover pay for services in the absence of an express
contract.
_Person Treated, and not Person calling in Physician, Employs Him
and is Liable._—In the first place, it must be stated as a general
proposition that the person for whom the services are actually
rendered, or upon whom the operation is performed, is bound to pay for
them, if otherwise capable in law of making contracts and incurring
obligations. And secondly, that one who calls a physician or surgeon
to attend a patient is not presumed to have contracted to pay for the
services rendered, unless his relations with the patient are such that
he would be obligated in law to pay, even if he had not himself called
in the medical man.
In the first case it is presumed that the patient is liable, because he
receives the benefit of the services, and nothing less than a distinct
understanding that he was not to pay will relieve him from this
obligation.
_Married Women and Infants Generally Not Liable._—Where such a person
is a married woman, unless the case arises in States or countries
where married women have been declared by statutes to be liable
the same as if single, this rule does not obtain. Nor is an infant
personally liable when he is living with his parent or guardian. Hull
_v._ Connelly, 3 McCord (S. C.), 6; Klein _v._ La Amoreaux, 2 Paige
Ch., 419; Atchinson _v._ Bruff, 50 Barb., 384; Wilcox _v._ Smith, 26
Barb., 341. But the contract of an infant for medicine and medical
attendance is deemed a contract for necessaries, and will be held
valid and enforced against his estate if there is no person standing
_in loco parentis_ who can be held liable. 3 Barn. & Cress., 484; 2
Kent Com., 236. In cases when the parent of the infant or the husband
of the married woman is liable, this liability obtains because the
services rendered are deemed necessary, and fall within the common-law
obligation of such persons to provide and pay for necessaries for those
whom they are bound to support and maintain.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account