This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
Hurley v Eddingfield (2).doc
2Supreme Court of Indiana.
3HURLEY v.EDDINGFIELD
4156 Ind. 416 (1901)
5BAKER, J.
The appellant sued appellee for $10,000 damages for wrongfully causing
8the death of his intestate. The court sustained appellee's demurrer to the
9complaint, and this ruling is assigned as error.
The material facts alleged may be summarized thus: At and for years
12before decedent's death appellee was a practicing physician at Mace, in
13Montgomery county, duly licensed under the laws of the state. He held himself
14out to the public as a general practitioner of medicine. He had been decedent's
15family physician. Decedent became dangerously ill, and sent for appellee. The
16messenger informed appellee of decedent's violent sickness, tendered him his
17fee for his services, and stated to him that no other physician was procurable in
18time, and that decedent relied on him for attention. No other physician was
19procurable in time to be of any use, and decedent did rely on appellee for
20medical assistance. Without any reason whatever, appellee refused to render aid
21to decedent. No other patients were requiring appellee's immediate service, and
22he could have gone to the relief of decedent if he had been willing to do so.
23Death ensued, without decedent's fault, and wholly from appellee's wrongful act.
24The alleged wrongful act was appellee's refusal to enter into a contract of
25employment. Counsel do not contend that, before the enactment of the law
26regulating the practice of medicine, physicians were bound to render professional
27service to every one who applied. Whart. Neg. ยง 731. The act regulating the
28practice of medicine provides for a board of examiners, standards of qualification,
29examinations, licenses to those found qualified, and penalties for practicing
30without license. Acts 1897, p. 255; Acts 1899, p. 247. The act is a preventive, not
31a compulsive, measure. In obtaining the state's license (permission) to practice
32medicine, the state does not require, and the licensee does not engage, that he
33will practice at all or on other terms than he may choose to accept. Counsel's
34analogies, drawn from the obligations to the public on the part of innkeepers,
35common carriers, and the like, are beside the mark.
36Judgment affirmed.
June 02, 2014
jcarlsmith
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu. Thank you.