Cole v. Wolfskill

California Court of Appeal Aug 10, 1920 No. Civ. No. 3179.Published

Before: Weller

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the existence of a confidential physician-patient relationship does not automatically invalidate a contract or shift the burden of proof to the physician unless there is evidence that the relationship was used to obtain an unfair advantage. Because the evidence showed the decedent acted voluntarily and with full capacity, the instructed verdict for the plaintiff was proper.

Issues

Whether the existence of a physician-patient relationship creates a presumption of undue influence that shifts the burden of proof to the physician in a contract dispute.
Whether the trial court erred in granting an instructed verdict for the plaintiff regarding a promissory note executed by a patient to her physician.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To overcome the presumption of consideration evidenced by a writing, it is not sufficient to show merely that the confidential relation existed, but it must be made to appear that the relationship was used to obtain an unfair advantage”

[53]

WELLER, J.

This appeal is from a judgment entered on an instructed verdict. The complaint alleged that the decedent in her lifetime executed to plaintiff her promissory note for the sum of twelve thousand five hundred dollars, and that a claim based on such note was presented to the defendants, as executors, and rejected. In the answer defendants pleaded the relationship of physician and patient between the decedent and plaintiff, and that the execution of the note was procured by undue influence and without adequate consideration.

From the testimony of witnesses at the trial, it appears that decedent was a widow, about seventy-one years of age, and without business experience until after her husband’s death, when she administered his large estate, with the assistance of agents and attorneys. She was of a confiding and generous disposition, possessed of a strong will, and was bright, capable, and clear-headed. The plaintiff had been for many years her family physician, and a neighbor; but, though their relations were very friendly, there was nothing of a business nature between them prior to the execution%f the note in question, except with regard to his fees, which she had paid. In May, 1915, the doctor amputated one of decedent’s legs, with the assistance of three other physicians whom he called for the purpose. Mrs. Wolfskill recovered sufficiently from the effect of the operation to make a trip to the Orient, accompanied by a servant, returning some time in December, 1915. Subsequent to her return she contracted the Illness which resulted in her death, in January, 1916. During her convalescence after the operation, and in the month of July, 1915, the doctor visited decedent one day, and, in the presence of the nurse, jokingly inquired of Mrs. Wolfskill how much he owed her for his visits, to which she responded by inquiring how much she owed him. At this point the nurse left the room, and did not hear the conversation that ensued. Several days later the doctor again called, bringing with him the note, which Mrs. Wolfskill signed. At the time of the signing of the note decedent offered to secure payment thereof by a mortgage on her Pasadena home, which offer, however, the doctor rejected, stating that her signature would be sufficient, and that she should keep her home clear. The doctor also informed Mrs. Wolfskill that he had paid the other physicians; and on

Cole v. Wolfskill

AI Brief

WELLER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief