H2O

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

by jcarlsmith
1

Hurley v Eddingfield (2).doc

2

Supreme Court of Indiana.

3

HURLEY v.EDDINGFIELD

4

156 Ind. 416 (1901)

5

BAKER, J.


7

The appellant sued appellee for $10,000 damages for wrongfully causing

8

the death of his intestate. The court sustained appellee's demurrer to the

9

complaint, and this ruling is assigned as error.


11

The material facts alleged may be summarized thus: At and for years

12

before decedent's death appellee was a practicing physician at Mace, in

13

Montgomery county, duly licensed under the laws of the state. He held himself

14

out to the public as a general practitioner of medicine. He had been decedent's

15

family physician. Decedent became dangerously ill, and sent for appellee. The

16

messenger informed appellee of decedent's violent sickness, tendered him his

17

fee for his services, and stated to him that no other physician was procurable in

18

time, and that decedent relied on him for attention. No other physician was

19

procurable in time to be of any use, and decedent did rely on appellee for

20

medical assistance. Without any reason whatever, appellee refused to render aid

21

to decedent. No other patients were requiring appellee's immediate service, and

22

he could have gone to the relief of decedent if he had been willing to do so.

23

Death ensued, without decedent's fault, and wholly from appellee's wrongful act.

24

The alleged wrongful act was appellee's refusal to enter into a contract of

25

employment. Counsel do not contend that, before the enactment of the law

26

regulating the practice of medicine, physicians were bound to render professional

27

service to every one who applied. Whart. Neg. ยง 731. The act regulating the

28

practice of medicine provides for a board of examiners, standards of qualification,

29

examinations, licenses to those found qualified, and penalties for practicing

30

without license. Acts 1897, p. 255; Acts 1899, p. 247. The act is a preventive, not

31

a compulsive, measure. In obtaining the state's license (permission) to practice

32

medicine, the state does not require, and the licensee does not engage, that he

33

will practice at all or on other terms than he may choose to accept. Counsel's

34

analogies, drawn from the obligations to the public on the part of innkeepers,

35

common carriers, and the like, are beside the mark.

36

Judgment affirmed.

Close

Annotated Case Information

June 02, 2014

contract

"HURLEY v. EDDINGFIELD"

HURLEY v. EDDINGFIELD

Author Stats

jcarlsmith

Expand
Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large