Jim Whitney
Economics 495
Case brief
Recorder name:
Case name:
Citation; Date:
Court:
Sarah Kushner
Hawkins v. McGee
84 N.H. 114 (1929)
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Name (if specified) and description of litigants at the original trial court level
Plaintiff:
George Hawkins burned his hand severely at the age of 11 and was persuaded by the
defendant, McGee, to undergo reconstructive skin-grafting surgery 9 years later.
Defendant:
McGee is the doctor who performed surgery on Hawkins’ hand.
Facts of the case:
Hawkins burned his hand on an electric wire nine years prior to the case under examination, and was a
long-term patient of McGee. McGee repeatedly solicited permission from Hawkins’ father to perform an
operation on his son’s hand despite the fact that he had very little experience in skin grafting. In fact, he
admitted that he was interested in using Hawkins’ hand to experiment with skin grafting techniques. Prior
to the operation, Hawkins had seen specialists in Montreal who advised him that nothing further could be
done to improve the functionality or appearance of his hand. However, Hawkins’ father finally gave McGee
permission to operate on his son’s hand in 1928 after McGee: (1) Confirmed that Hawkins would be in the
hospital for a maximum of four days and (2) Guaranteed to make Hawkins’ hand “a hundred per cent
perfect hand.“
Hawkins ended up being hospitalized for three months following his surgery, because the operation left his
hand in much worse condition than planned. Hawkins bled intermittently throughout the rest of his life,
never recovered full use of his hand and ended up dropping out of high school because he was so
mortified by his hand’s appearance.
Procedural history (remedy sought, prior rulings, grounds for appeal, etc., as available):
The trial court ruled that Hawkins should be awarded reliance damages (to make him as well off as he was
before undergoing surgery). The appellate court, however, suggested that Hawkins should be awarded
expectation damages (to make him as well off as if the contract had been fulfilled).
Court opinion (key issues and arguments):
The court emphasizes the fact that McGee repeatedly solicited the opportunity to perform this skin grafting
operation. They argue that McGee’s promise to make Hawkins’ hand 100% normal was used to persuade
Hawkins’ father to enter into a contract with the doctor.
The appellate court argues that the Hawkins should be awarded damages equal to the “difference
between the value to him of a perfect hand or a good hand, such as the jury found the defendant promised
him, and the value of his hand in its present condition.” They believe that Hawkins’ should be put in as
good as a position as he would have been in had McGee upheld the contract.
Dissenting opinion, if any (key issues and arguments):
None
Disposition of case:
The appellate court awarded a new trial in order to renegotiate the size of damages awarded to Hawkins.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE
1. Course topic of the case:
Liability for Damages (Breaking Contracts)
2. How does the case relate to the course topic?
This case illustrates that the law recognizes expectation damages, rather than reliance damages, as the
appropriate reward for breach of contract. By awarding expectation damages, the court makes the plaintiff
as well off as if the contract had been fulfilled.
3. Which previously assigned cases, if any, are related to this case, and how does this one differ?
None
4. How does the case affect economic incentives and efficiency?
This case helps us understand why it is efficient to award expectation damages for breaches of
contract. In general, awarding expectation damages ensures that parties involved in contracts
only breach when it is efficient to breach (when the unanticipated additional cost of fulfilling the
contract is greater than the worth of the contract to the promisee).