Cotnam v. Wisdom
Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1907
83 Ark. 601, 104 S.W. 164
By: Jody Pattison

 Relevant Facts:  Mr. Harrison was thrown from streetcar, receiving serious injuries, which rendered him unconscious, and while in that condition a doctor/doctors assisted him in a intricate operation.  Although unsuccessful, Mr. Harrison died and the physicians are looking for payment under an (implied contract). 

Legal Issue(s):  Can you collect for an implied contract when there is a contract and a promise, when all the evidence in the case shows that there was not a contract, nor the semblance of one.

Holding:  NO, but I am unsure of the answer in this case. It appears to me that the doctors acted without (talking with Mr. Harrison or someone acting as his agent, family or otherwise, I feel that the doctors acted in a Gratuitous manner and there.

Law or Rule(s): 

Court Rationale:  It was the courts error for instructing the jury in the second instruction that in determining what was a reasonable charge they could consider the “ability to pay of the person operated on.” It would be prejudicial.

Plaintiff’s Argument:  The fact that they acted in the scope of their duties and it merely requires a reasonable compensation for the services rendered. The services are the same be the patient prince or pauper, and for them the surgeon is entitled to fair compensation for his time, service and skill.