Question

FACTS:                In March of 1997, 16-year-old Michelle Schmidt was injured in an automobile accident and brought to Prince George's Hospital. Though her identity and that of her parents were originally unknown, the hospital provided her with emergency medical care for a brain concussion and open scalp wound. After her discharge, she had incurred hospital expenses of $1,756.24. Ms. Schmidt was insured through her father's insurance company. The insurance company issued a check to be used to cover medical expenses. However, the funds were not used to pay the hospital and were used instead to purchase a car for Ms. Schmidt. After Ms. Schmidt attained her eighteenth birthday and failed to pay the hospital, it brought suit against her. Ms. Schmidt defended the suit claiming she was under the disability of minority when she entered into the implied promise to pay the hospital for the needed medical treatment. The trial court found for the hospital, and Ms. Schmidt appealed.

ISSUE:                  Can a child be held contractually liable for necessary medical expenses when the parent is unable or unwilling to pay?

HOLDING:           Yes. The prevailing modem rule is that a minor's contracts are voidable, except for necessaries. The doctrine of necessaries states that a minor may be held liable for necessaries, including medical necessaries, which he or she is afforded when his or her parents are unwilling to pay. The court concluded that Ms. Schmidt's father demonstrated a clear unwillingness to pay by using the insurance money to purchase a car rather than pay the hospital. The court further concluded that as an adult, Ms. Schmidt is liable for the medical treatment she incurred while a minor. Given her father's unwillingness to pay for the medical treatment, Ms. Schmidt is primarily liable for the debt to the hospital.

REASONING:      The court emphasized a public policy rationale. A hospital may use a third-party tortfeasor for expenses incurred by a minor whose parents are either unwilling or unable to pay, therefore, the court reasoned that a child upon attaining adulthood should be responsible for medical necessaries provided him if his parents are unwilling or unable to pay. The dissenting judges stress that the petitioner's father was only unwilling to pay the hospital, not unable. The dissent reasons that such unwillingness by the parents should not render the child liable

What is the historical policy basis for the modern rule that minors' contracts are voidable; and what is the basis for the exception that minors may be liable for necessaries? In short why and how is she held liable for the bill?

In layperson's terms, explain the public policy utilized to support the court's decision to hold Ms. Schmidt liable for the unpaid emergency care provided to her while she was a minor. In short what kind of precedent or past practice and public policy could back the courts' decision here?

Answer 1

In the case presented of Ms. Schmidt, she had incurred a medical expense at the time she was 16 years and since she was insured through her father’s insurance company, the company paid her the amount through a check. However the money was not utilized to settle the hospital bill and was used to buy a car. Later on, after she turned 18 and became a major, the hospital brought a suit against her and the court in it’s verdict held her liable for settling the dues of the hospital.

The first issue here is that the contracts made by minors are void because as per law, they lack the legal capacity to enter into legally binding contacts, which was true in Ms Schmidt’s case. The court has further observed that the petitioner’s father was only unwilling to pay the hospital, not unable.

There are few exceptions to this premise;

1. In many states, a minor cannot void a contract for necessities like food, clothing and lodging.

2. A minor can void a contract for lack of capacity while he or she is still a minor.

3. Once the minor turns 18, and has not done anything to void the contract, then the contract cannot be voided.

In the case of Ms. Schmidt, the hospital filed the suit after she turned 18 and hence the court’s decision seems justified.