Fraser v. San Francisco Bridge Co.
Synopsis
Master and Servant—Contract to Pay for Medical Services—Consideration.—Although a master may not he responsible for injury received by his servant while in his employ, yet where he has been a faithful servant, and was injured while performing his duties as such, and has no means to procure needed attention and care, there is a sufficient moral obligation resting on the master to furnish to him such assistance and care to constitute a consideration for a legal obligation to pay all reasonable charges of the attending physician for medical services.
Id.—Ratification of Authority of President of Corporation— Estoppel.—Where a president of a corporation has contracted in the name of the corporation to pay to attending physicians a reasonable compensation for medical services to an employee injured while in its employment, a payment made by the corporation to one of the physicians for his services, and its offer to pay a reasonable sum to the other physician for his services, recognized, approved, and confirmed the authority of the president to make the contract, and the corporation cannot, after the services have been rendered in reliance on the contract, be permitted to repudiate it and deny liability thereunder.
Id.—Contract Reserving Right to Determine Reasonableness of Charge.—Where the agreement made on behalf of the corporation to pay all reasonable charges of the physicians contains the words: “ We reserve to ourselves the right to determine what is reasonable,” such reservation is one which the company, under the circumstances shown, had a right to make, and the physician is entitled to recover only the amount offered him by the corporation, and a jury cannot award him any greater amount.
The Court. The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of one thousand dollars alleged to be due him for medical services rendered to one John Howden at the request of the defendant. The answer denied that the services were rendered at the request of defendant, or that defendant was in any way liable therefor. The plaintiff recovered a judgment for the sum of six hundred and sixteen dollars, from which, and from an order refusing a new trial, the defendant appeals:
[81]It appears from the record that on the 19th of May, 1890, the defendant was engaged in the erection of a bridge in Sonoma county, and John Howden was the foreman in charge of the work. On that day Howden fell from the bridge, and received serious injuries, which caused his death on the 23d of July following. It is not claimed, however, that the fall resulted from any carelessness or fault on the part of the defendant or its other employees.
On the next day after the injuries were received Howden was taken to his home in San Francisco, and thereupon, at the request of his wife, the plaintiff, Dr. Fraser, who had,been his family physician for several years, visited him and took charge of the case. Thereafter the plaintiff visited him twice every day till he died, remaining about an hour and a quarter on each visit. On May 27th Dr. Wooster was called in consultation, and it was determined that some of the spinal processes had been fractured, and that a surgical operation was necessary to remove a piece of broken bone which was pressing on the spinal cord. Before performing the operation the plaintiff telephoned to the office of the defendant asking if Mr. McMullen, the president of the company, could meet Dr. Wooster and himself at Mr. Howden’s house at five o’clock in the afternoon of that day. Mr. McMullen responded that he didn’t know whether he would be able to meet them or not, but if he could n’t he would send a representative of the company. At the time named, Mr. H. S. Wood, an engineer in the employ of the company, met the doctors at Howden’s house, saying that he came to represent the company. Dr. Wooster then stated to Mr. Wood that considerable attention would be required in Howden’s case, and that he did not feel like going on with the case without some written obligation from the company. Thereupon Mr. Wood wrote and signed the following agreement and delivered it to Dr. Wooster and the plaintiff:
[82]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)