Case Summary Brief
Recorder name:
Case name:
Citation; Date:
Court:
Andrew P. Imthurn
Hawkins v. McGee
84 N.H. 114; 1929
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Name and description of litigants at the original trial court level
Plaintiff:
George Hawkins
Defendant:
Dr. McGee
Facts of the case:
Hawkins had been burned on the hand at age eleven in 1920. After healing, the use of his hand was not noticeably
impaired and had a "pencil sized" scar on his right thumb and forefinger, and across the tissue separating them. Dr.
McGee urged Hawkins and his parents to have a skin graft, stressing the socially uncomfortable character of a scar.
The doctor provided significant assurance as to the outcome of the surgery, stating, “I will give the boy a whole hand,
a new hand” and as to the consequences of the surgical procedure, “three or four days in the hospital, followed by
three or four days of outpatient recovery to full normal health with a hand good as new.”
However, following the operation, Hawkins’ hand became badly mangled, with thick hair growing out of the palm as
a result of the experimental skin graft surgery.
Procedural history:
Hawkins sued McGee for breach of contract and the jury found for Hawkins, awarding $3,000. On appeal, the
appellate court said the verdict would be set aside unless Hawkins agreed to return all but $500 (they held the
damages awarded were excessive). Hawkins refused, and the verdict was overturned.
The trial court’s instructions to the jury suggested instead that they award damages based on pain and suffering plus
any injury over and above what the plaintiff had before the surgery.
Court opinion:
The defendant argued that there was no breach of contract and that a reasonable person would understand there is no
way to guarantee a perfectly successful operation. However, there was evidence that Dr. McGee sought out the
plaintiff multiple times to perform the operation and wanted the opportunity to perform the “experimental” operation.
Thus, it was determined that the defendant had intended his words to be accepted at face value and thus the court
ruled that Dr. McGee did in fact breach the contract.
In this case, Hawkins was not entitled to damages for pain and suffering because he would still have endured them
had the procedure been successful. Hawkins was entitled to the difference between what he sought – a perfect hand,
and what he received – a hairy hand. The plaintiff was also entitled to incidental losses resulting from the breach.
The court argued that the pain and suffering experienced by the plaintiff in the course of the operation should not be
cause for damages because this is pain and suffering the plaintiff would have been willing to endure to make his hand
better had the surgery been successful. Pain and suffering doesn’t necessarily measure the value of a good hand or the
difference between that value and the value of the plaintiff’s current hand.
The court also argued that the jury shouldn’t have been told to award damages based on the hand being made worse
from the operation. The court said that this part of the damages would be taken into account if the jury had been
instructed to use the correct rule.
Disposition of case:
The appellate court ruled that the trial court gave inappropriate instructions to the jury. The court ordered a new trial
where the right jury instructions would be given.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
1. Course topic of the case:
Contracts
2. How does the case relate to the course topic?
This case relates to the course topic because it addresses the issue of how to award damages for a breach of contract.
The case illustrates that the law recognizes expectation damages (rather than reliance damages) as the appropriate
award.
3. Which previously assigned cases, if any, are related to this case, and how does this one differ?
This case is similar to Groves v. John Wunder and Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal Co. because all three cases deal with
how to award damages from a breach of contract. However, Hawkens v. McGee differs from these two because
unlike John Wunder and Garland Coal Co., Dr. McGee did not willfully or fraudulently breach the contract.
Hawkens v. McGee is similar to Groves v. John Wonder in the sense that they both awarded damages to the injured
party and gave the injured party, monetarily, what they were promised. This is in contrast to Peevyhouse v. Garland
Coal Co. where the gain from the breach was awarded to the injuring party, potentially setting an incentive to
willfully and fraudulently breach a contract.
4. How does the case affect economic incentives and efficiency?
Expectation damages are damages that are recoverable after a breach of contract by the non-breaching party with the
purpose of putting the non-breaching party in the position he would have occupied had the contract been fulfilled.
It likely will cause individuals (in this case a physician) to not guarantee a result of their work prior to performance.
This would result because as this case shows, the physician was faced with paying expectation damages because of
his breach of contract (not providing a perfect hand.) It further provides incentives to parties to not breach a contract
or fail to render the promised performance.