Hawkins v. McGee

Case brief summary

Facts

A surgeon allegedly promised to make a scarred hand one hundred percent perfect through a skin graft operation, but the hand did not turn out that way.

Procedural history

A jury ruled for the patient, but the judge said the damages were too high and ordered a lower amount. The patient refused, so the verdict was cancelled and both sides appealed.

Issue

Did the surgeon's statement create a binding promise, and if so, how should the jury calculate money damages for breaking that promise?

Holding

The jury was right to decide whether a contract existed, but the trial judge gave the jury the wrong instructions on how to calculate damages, so a new trial is required.

Reasoning

The court said damages should equal the difference between how good the hand was promised to be and how it actually turned out, not just pain or how much worse it got.

Opinions

Majority (Branch): The surgeon's alleged promise of a perfect hand could form a binding contract, and damages must be measured by the difference between the promised result and the actual result, not pain and suffering.