Title: Schmidt v. Prince George's Hospital

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

Michelle M. Schmidt v. Prince George’s Hospital, No. 119, September Term, 2000.
PARENT/CHILD—DOCTRINE 
OF 
NECESSARIES—MEDICAL 
TREATMENT—
LIABILITY—Where a parent is unable or unwilling to pay for a minor child’s necessary
emergency medical treatment at the time of incursion of the treatment, the child, upon
reaching the age of majority, may be held liable under the doctrine of necessaries for those
medical services rendered during his or her minority.
Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County
Case #C00-505
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
No. 119
September Term, 2000
MICHELLE M. SCHMIDT
v.
PRINCE GEORGE’S HOSPITAL
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia
JJ.
Opinion by Harrell, J.
Bell, C.J., Eldridge and Raker, JJ. dissent.
Filed:   November 15, 2001
On 1 May 2000, judgment was entered by the District Court of Maryland, sitting in St.
Mary’s County, in favor of Prince George’s Hospital (Respondent) in a suit brought by it
1 As the amount in controversy was less than $2500, Maryland Code (1998 Repl. Vol.),
Courts and Judicial Proceedings Art., § 12-401(f) and Maryland Rule 7-102(a)(1) provide for
such appeals to proceed de novo.
2  Schmidt v. Prince George’s Hospital, 362 Md. 359, 765 A.2d 142 (2001).
against Michelle M. Schmidt (Petitioner) to recover $1756.24 for medical services provided
by it to her in 1997 when she was 16 years of age.  Petitioner was an adult when the suit was
filed in 1999.  Petitioner appealed to the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County.  She contended
that she could not have been sued while a minor, as  there was, in her view, no Maryland statute
or common law holding that a minor child is liable for medical necessaries, and therefore she
could not be sued as an adult for the medical services rendered when she was a minor.
Respondent countered that a minor may be held liable for necessary emergency medical
treatment under the doctrine of necessaries and that such liability was not extinguished merely
upon reaching adulthood.  On 6 November 2000, the Circuit Court entered a judgment in the
appeal1 in favor of Respondent in the amount of $1756.24, plus interest and costs.  Respondent
recovered the amount of the judgment from Petitioner through wage attachments.  
We granted Petitioner’s writ of certiorari on 9 January 2001.2 
The questions presented in the successful petition, modified only stylistically, are: 
1.
Whether, under Maryland law, a minor under a legal disability is
personally liable for medical necessaries rendered upon her person; and
therefore, suable as an adult under an implied contractual promise to pay
the medical provider?  
2.
May a 16 year old make a binding promise to pay at age 18?
We shall affirm.
I.
3 Petitioner’s date of birth was listed on Respondent’s bill for the medical services as
22 December 1980, a fact she did not dispute.
4 In oral argument before the Circuit Court and this Court, Petitioner’s counsel
indicated that the Erie policy was held by the grandfather, Lewis A. Schmidt, Sr.  In her  brief
to this Court, however, Petitioner asserts that “the father received this exact amount [the
amount owed to Respondent] from his insurance carrier, the Erie Insurance Group, by check
dated April 29, 1997.”  See Petitioner’s Brief at 8.  Several exhibits put into evidence indeed
indicate that the Erie policy was held by Petitioner’s father, Lewis A. Schmidt, Jr.  On the
Disclosure Authorization filed by Petitioner with Respondent, Lewis A. Schmidt, Jr., is listed
as the named insured on the Erie policy.  Additionally, on the Assignment and Authorization
form Petitioner filed with Erie, Petitioner’s father is again listed as the policy holder (with
Petitioner herself listed as the claimant).  Finally, in a letter dated 22 March 2000 from Erie
to Petitioner’s counsel, an Erie Claims Supervisor indicated that Petitioner’s father held the
policy with Erie and that he was sent the 29 April 1997 PIP proceeds check.
2
The material facts of this case do not appear to be in dispute.  On 7 March 1997,
Petitioner, then 16-years-old,3 was involved in a two-vehicle collision.  At the time, she was
driving a 1997 Ford Escort owned by Lewis Arno Schmidt, Sr., her grandfather, and was insured
with personal injury protection (PIP) benefits through her father’s insurance company, Erie
Insurance Group.4  Petitioner was transported to the Shock Trauma Unit at Prince George’s
Hospital (Respondent), where she was initially admitted as “Jane Doe,” without an emergency
contact person or telephone number, because she was unconscious at the time of arrival.
Although Respondent later was able to identify Petitioner’s name and address, it was only able
to determine that her father was “Mr. Schmidt” and a telephone number for him.  Due to the
severity of Petitioner’s injuries sustained in the collision, Respondent provided necessary
emergency medical care for a brain concussion and an open scalp wound.  As of her discharge
on 8 March 1997, Petitioner had incurred hospital expenses in the amount of $1756.24. 
5 Although Petitioner casually hints in her brief at Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.’s
liability, she directed us to no evidence in the record supporting Prudential’s connection to this
case, other than her claim that Prudential was her father’s HMO at the time of her
hospitalization.
3
Soon after her release from the hospital, Petitioner filed for benefits under the
coverage provided in her father’s Erie policy.  During the claim process, Petitioner and her
father provided several documents to Erie regarding her medical expenses.  On 16 March
1997, Petitioner and her father signed a Disclosure Authorization, authorizing Petitioner’s
treating physician to furnish Erie with the records of her post-accident treatment.  On 1 May
1997, Petitioner and her father signed an Assignment and Authorization of benefits under the
PIP coverage instructing and directing Erie to pay directly to her treating physician the amount
owed him.  Thereafter, a check in the amount of $1756.24 also was issued by Erie to “Lewis
A. Schmidt for Minor, Michelle Schmidt” in reference to “Prince George’s Hospital Center,
Service Date 03-07-1997 to 03-08-1997.”  The check was negotiated, but the funds were not
used by Petitioner or her father to pay Respondent; rather, the funds apparently were used to
purchase a replacement  automobile for Petitioner. 
Following an unsuccessful demand for payment made to Petitioner, Respondent filed
suit in the District Court, in Petitioner’s county of residence, on 19 November 1999, after she
attained her majority.  Petitioner filed a Notice of Intention to Defend, explaining that she
denied liability and that the debt was the responsibility of Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc.5
Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment or to dismiss based on her age at
the time the medical services were provided.  The motion was denied.  Neither Petitioner nor
4
her counsel appeared for trial.  The District Court granted judgment upon affidavit to
Respondent in the amount due for Petitioner’s hospital treatment.  Petitioner’s appeal to the
Circuit Court resulted effectively in affirmance of the District Court’s judgment.  The Circuit
Court explained its ruling, in pertinent part:
The question is, at the time [Petitioner] was 16 plus when she had this accident,
and she was placed in the hospital for care.  I think the evidence is undisputed
that the care was necessary for her well-being, could possibly have affected her
living as a result of it. . . .  So the Court finds that the evidence that is
uncontradicted, that she went to the hospital and the amount being sued for is for
services rendered.  There is no suggestion that the services weren’t reasonable
and fair, under the circumstances.  The question is . . . that even though it was for
her necessity, she has a disability and therefore cannot be held liable either then
or after attaining the age of majority.  She attained the age of majority when she
became 18.  She was sued by [Respondent] for that debt. . . .  People who deal
with minors deal with them at their peril.  But when a person goes to a hospital
for medical treatment that is possibly life saving, no one would—I can’t think
of any higher form of necessity for a person, and in this case [Petitioner], for
those services.  Now, those services being a necessity, the parents and/or child
can be held responsible for.  And if a child goes out and has to—it goes to the
hospital, and at the time it is a minor a parent could be held responsible for that.
Parents are responsible for the necessities of their children. . . .
In this case the hospital rendered services to [Petitioner], and that debt
has not been paid. [Petitioner] has become an adult, and [Respondent] has sued
her as such, and the Court finds that those pleadings suing her individually, not
through a custodian or ad litem, was perfectly appropriate.  Now [Petitioner] has
the right to revert back, in evidence, that at the time this debt was incurred, as to
her minority, which it is undisputed she was a minor, none-the-less the Court
finds the law has been well settled for a long time and has not changed, that
minors are responsible for necessities.  Of course, it imputes that responsibility
to parents, but in this case she herself is responsible for that because it is a
necessity.  There is no requirement that [Respondent] has to sue at this time,
within the Statute of Limitations, sues her as an adult.  She is, as an adult, can use
the minority right she had, but the [C]ourt does not find that she has a right to
decline to pay a debt to a hospital under those circumstances, just because she
didn’t execute any agreement.  There certainly is an implied contract that she
should pay for medical services for her benefit, no one else’s, and the law is
6 See Part III.C for our discussion of Petitioner’s assertion that contracts entered into
by minors are void ab initio, as opposed to voidable.  
5
well settled that the liability arises from an implied promise to pay. . . .  [I]f the
emergency room had turned her down and she had died or suffered serious
injury because nobody was going to be responsible for paying it, then they would
sue the hospital for malpractice. . . .  [H]er disability at that time is not an excuse
nor a defense for her obligations to the hospital.
We granted certiorari.  Petitioner asserts that a 16-year-old child is not legally capable
of making an implied contract to pay for emergency medical treatment rendered for her
benefit, and that the doctrine of necessaries does not permit a hospital to sue a minor child and
obtain a money judgment without naming the parent as the primary, legally responsible person.
Not having done so, Respondent may not sue Petitioner, upon her reaching adulthood, for the
cost of the medical treatment provided to her when a minor.  Respondent naturally counters
that the District Court and the Circuit Court correctly entered judgment in its favor for the
value of the emergency treatment rendered to Petitioner and correctly upheld Respondent’s
claim initiated solely against Petitioner  after the disability period defined by her age had
ended.
II.
A.
In the absence of a statute to the contrary, the prevailing modern rule is that a minor’s
contracts are voidable;6 nevertheless, it also is well established that a minor may be liable for
the value of necessaries furnished to him or her.  This doctrine, eponymously  referred to as
7 Effective 1 July 1973, the age of majority in Maryland was reduced from 21 to 18
years of age.  Maryland Code (1957, 1998 Repl. Vol.), Art. I § 24.
6
the doctrine of necessaries, is well recognized in Maryland law.  In Monumental Building
Association v. Herman, 33 Md. 128 (1870), our venerable predecessors explained somewhat
the breadth and application of this doctrine.
By the common law, persons, under the age of twenty-one years,[7] are not
bound by their contracts, except for necessaries, nor can they do any act, to the
injury of their property, which they may not avoid, when arrived at full age.
Their responsibility for crime or fraudulent dealing, depends more on their
discretion and power to discriminate right from wrong, what is just or otherwise,
than on their age.  Infants have this indulgence from their supposed want of
judgment in their transactions with others, and the law takes this care of them
to prevent them from being imposed upon, or overreached by persons of more
years and experience.
They are allowed to contract for their benefit with power in most cases,
to recede from their contract when it may prove prejudicial to them, but in their
contract for necessaries, such as board, apparel, medical aid, teaching and
instruction, and other necessaries, they are absolutely bound, and may be
sued and charged in execution; but it must appear that the things were
absolutely necessary, and suitable to their circumstances, and whoever trusts
them does so at his peril, or as it is said, deals with them at arms’ length.
Their power, thus to contract for necessaries, is for their benefit, because
the procurement of these things is essential to their existence, and if they were
not permitted so to bind themselves they might suffer.
Monumental, 33 Md. at131-32 (emphasis added).    
Approximately 123 years later, in Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 631 A.2d 429
(1993), the Court held that, although a parent is liable at common law and by statute  for the
medical expenses incurred on one’s child’s behalf, the child, when contractually liable for
those medical expenses because the parent is unable or unwilling to pay, may attempt to
7
recover those expenses from the tortfeasor who inflicted the injuries necessitating the medical
treatment.  Garay, 332 Md. at 374, 631 A.2d at 444.  The analysis in Garay began by noting
that “a minor can very well be responsible for pre-majority medical expenses not only through
emancipation, pre-payment, or through the death or incompetency, but also under the doctrine
of necessaries.”  Garay, 332 Md. at 367, 631 A.2d at 443.  We  acknowledged that “the
application of the necessaries doctrine is often limited to when the minor child is living with
and supported by his parents” because parents are responsible at common law and by statute
for the necessaries of their children.  Garay, 332 Md. at 368-69, 631 A.2d at 444; see Family
Law Art. § 5-203(b)(1) (stating that the parents of a minor child “are jointly and severally
responsible for the child’s support, care, nurture, welfare, and education”).  We noted,
however, that “where the parent refuses or is unable to furnish necessaries, the infant is liable
for necessaries furnished him or her.”  Garay, 332 Md. at 369, 631 A.2d at 444.  After
considering the various manifestations and applications of this rule in certain other
jurisdictions, we resolved that,  
[a]lthough we decline to vest a right to recover medical expenses in a minor in
all cases, we agree that the doctrine of necessaries is sufficient to hold a
minor child liable for medical expenses incurred by him or her if it can be
shown that his or her parent is unwilling or truly unable to pay them.  This
liability will, in turn, give a minor the right to claim medical expenses on his or
her own behalf.  It would be manifestly unjust to hold a child liable for medical
expenses but to deny that child the opportunity to recover those expenses from
a wrongdoer.
Garay, 332 Md. at 371, 631 A.2d at 445 (emphasis added).  We concluded:
it would be patently unfair to disallow a claim by a minor child for medical
expenses, but to then subject that minor child’s recovery to the hospital lien.
8
Under such a circumstance, the minor must be allowed to recover medical
expenses to the extent that the minor will be liable for such expenses.
Id., 332 Md. at 373, 631 A.2d at 445 (emphasis added).  The Court, however, did not need to
refine what was encompassed by the term “unwilling to pay”or explore the factual contexts in
other jurisdictions when the alternative of a parent’s unwillingness to pay for a child’s
necessaries triggered (or did not trigger) the child’s liability. 
Most recently, in Johns Hopkins Hospital v. Pepper, 346 Md. 679, 697 A.2d 1358
(1997), we considered, among other issues, whether a minor may recover medical expenses
incurred to treat his injuries from claimed medical malpractice where his parents were unable
to pay for those expenses and where their claims against the third-party tortfeasor were barred
by the statute of limitations.  Reiterating that “[t]he doctrine of necessaries has long been a
feature of Maryland law,” we noted that both parties agreed that Garay was the controlling law
in that case.  Pepper, 346 Md. at 692, 697 A.2d at 1365 (citing Monumental, 33 Md. 128).
In applying the doctrine, as explicated in Garay, to Pepper, we determined that the doctrine
is merely an acknowledgment that for certain services, a minor should not be
heard to disavow a contract which by personal necessity required his or her
participation.  In a case of catastrophic medical injury, we can certainly
conceive of a situation where the parents can afford some but not all of the
injured child’s past, present, and future medical expenses.  Assuming limitations
has barred parental claims for such, the doctrine of necessaries protects an
injured minor’s right to recover from a tortfeasor medical expenses that his or
her parents are ill-able to afford and for which he or she ultimately may be
liable. . . . We cannot countenance a result that would leave the only innocent
victim in such a transaction uncompensated for his or her injuries and
potentially beholden to the compelled generosity of the taxpayer.  Public policy
and justice demand that an injured minor’s right to recover medical expenses in
his or her own name after limitations has barred parental claims begin where the
parents’ financial ability to provide for medical necessaries ends.  
9
Pepper, 346 Md. at 694-95, 697 A.2d at 1365-66 (emphasis added).  The facts of Pepper did
not require the Court to examine the unwillingness axiom of the necessaries doctrine.
The rationales underlying Garay and Pepper recognize that public policy and justice
demand that an injured minor have the right to recover incurred medical expenses from a third-
party tortfeasor, where the child’s parents are unable or unwilling to pay for those expenses,
because the medical provider may sue to recover them, either during the child’s minority or
within the statute of limitations after the child has reached the age of majority.  By parity of
reasoning, it would seem that such a child, upon attaining adulthood, may be liable in contract
to pay for medical necessaries provided to him or her while a minor, if the parents were unable
or unwilling to pay for such necessaries.  Before we may reach such a holding, however, it
seems prudent to examine how, if at all, our sister states regard the unwillingness prong of this
aspect of the doctrine of necessaries.
B.
There appears to be no case elsewhere that supplies a user-friendly, all-purpose
definition or scope of the term “unwilling to pay” in connection with the doctrine of
necessaries. The vast majority of these cases share two common traits: they are bereft of
detailed or substantive analysis of the “unwillingness” standard, and the varying outcomes are
largely fact-driven.  Based on its survey of the foreign cases, the Dissent urges limiting our
application of  “unwilling” only to cases in which: 1) the parent has abandoned the child; 2) the
parent contributes absolutely nothing to the child’s support; or 3) the child has recovered
medical expenses from a tortfeasor and the parent refuses to pay for the care.  Dissent, slip op.
8With regard to its first category, parental abandonment, the Dissent cites for support
In Re Dzwonkiewicz’s Estate, 203 N.W. 671 (Mich. 1925).  The Dissent (slip op. at 7) reads
this case to have turned on the father’s abandonment.  Although the Michigan court mentioned
the father’s abandonment, that was only a factual predicate to set the stage for the real issue
addressed by the court, whether the medical provider could recover by petition in the probate
court against the appointed guardian (the child’s mother) of the child’s estate.  Id. at 671.  The
estate of the child, who survived the automobile accident that caused his injuries which
necessitated the physician’s care, was funded by the proceeds of the settlement of a tort suit
brought by his mother, as next friend, against the tortfeasor.  Id.  The physician’s recovery
against the estate was allowed, despite the fact that his claim was based on an implied contract
with the child and not with the guardian-parent.  Id. at 672.  Therefore, this case does not really
buttress the Dissent’s first category of “unwillingness” situations. 
The Dissent cites two cases to support its second definition of “unwilling” (i.e. when
a parent contributes nothing towards the child’s support).  The interpretation of those cases by
the Dissent, however, takes them a bit out of context.  In Trainer v. Trumbull, 6 N.E. 761
(Mass. 1886), the issue before the court was whether the items provided to the child were
“necessaries.”  The facts of the case, however, do not turn on whether the child’s parent “did
anything toward[] his care or support.”  Trainer, 6 N.E. at 762.  In Strong v. Foote, 42 Conn.
203 (Conn. 1875), the case did not hinge on the fact, as the Dissent suggests, that the “child’s
guardian did not show any effort or intention to repair or preserve the child’s teeth,”  Dissent,
slip op. at 8 (citing Strong, 42 Conn. at 205), rather it turned on whether the dentist should
have “instituted an inquiry as to a guardianship over the defendant . . . as a pre-requisite for a
recovery in this suit . . . .”  Strong, 42 Conn. at 205.  Because the dentist had done work on the
child in the past and the child’s guardian had paid for that work, the court found the dentist
acted reasonably in providing the instant necessary service to the child and held the child liable
for the cost.  Id.  Although the guardian did refuse payment, we do not read the court’s analysis
as turning on that fact.
10
at 7-8.  These categories of “unwillingness,” although not entirely inaccurate8, are too limiting.
 Regarding the Dissent’s second category, for example, a distinction has been
recognized in at least one jurisdiction between a parent who always refuses to pay his child’s
bills and refuses to provide any support to the child, and a parent who generally supports his
child, but currently is refusing to pay only one bill.  See North Carolina Baptist Hosp. v.
Franklin, 405 S.E.2d 814 (N.C. 1991) (holding a child is not liable when her parents did
9See Bitting v. Goss, 166 S.E. 302 (N.C. 1932) (placing liability on a child for medical
expenses when his father refused to pay and the child recovered damages for his injuries); Cole
v. Wagner, 150 S.E. 339 (N.C. 1929) (finding a child liable for his medical expenses after he
recovered damages and his father was unable or unwilling to pay); Gardner v. Flowers, 529
S.W.2d 708 (Tenn. 1975) (holding a child, who recovered damages, liable for medical
expenses which her parents were unable to pay).
10See, e.g.,  Poole v. Wilkinson, 42 Ga. 539 (Ga. 1871);  Westrate v. Schipper, 279
N.W. 870 (Mich. 1938); North Carolina Baptist Hosp. v. Franklin, 405 S.E.2d 814 (N.C.
1991);  Siegel v. Hodges, 15 A.D.2d 571 (N.Y. 1961); Stetson v. Russell, 130 Misc. 713
(continued...)
11
everything they could in regard to necessaries except pay a bill).  In the latter case category,
the parent does not qualify as “unwilling” and the child is not held liable.  The theory underlying
this distinction is that to allow differently would give some parents little or no incentive to pay
for their children’s expenses.  For the reasons explained infra, we are not persuaded to adopt
this distinction.
As to the Dissent’s third category, to be sure there are cases holding a child liable for
his or her necessaries where the child had recovered damages from the tortfeasor.9  The
rationale in those cases seems to be that it is not unfair to require a child to pay for his or her
necessaries where he or she received money as damages because he or she will not be put in
any worse position then prior to the tort.  See Cole v. Wagner, 150 S.E. 339, 341 (N.C. 1929)
(“To allow the defendant infant to recover upon this theory and then deny the plaintiff in the
present action the right to recover on the same theory of necessary expenses, would be blowing
hot and cold in the same breath.”).  Similarly, there are courts that seem to conclude that a
child should not be required to pay for his or her necessaries where he or she has not recovered
damages from a tortfeasor.10 
10(...continued)
(N.Y. 1927); Madison Gen. Hosp. v. Haack, 369 N.W.2d 663 (Wisc. 1985).
11 See, e.g., Stetson v. Russell, 130 Misc. 713 (N.Y. 1927) (“[The father] was never
served in this action . . . .  In order to fasten any liability on [the child] . . . it was absolutely
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, . . . that he was unwilling to furnish such services, or would
not pay for them.”); Madison Gen. Hosp. v. Haack, 369 N.W.2d 663, 667 (Wisc. 1985)
(“[T]he record in this case is insufficient to establish the parents’ neglect, failure, refusal, or
inability to pay.  There is no evidence that the hospital ever sought payment from [the
mother].”).
12See Poole v. Wilkinson, 42 Ga. 539, 540 (Ga. 1871) (“Perhaps if the guardian were
insolvent, and it could be proven that the services were necessary to the ward . . ., equity might
grant relief, and cause the debt to be paid out of the ward’s property.”); Siegel v. Hodges, 15
A.D.2d 571, 572 (N.Y. 1961) (“[T]he infant may be held liable for necessaries furnished to him
if his parents . . . are unable to pay for them.”) (citations omitted); Greenville Hosp. Sys. v.
Smith, 239 S.E.2d 657, 658 (S.C. 1977) (“[T]he minor is not liable unless the parents are
unable to pay the reasonable value of the hospital services . . . .”).
12
Some states appear to hold that, in order to find a parent “unwilling,” thus making a child
liable for his or her necessaries, a court should require hard and fast proof of default by the
parents.  Those states note that in order to meet the requirement of “unwilling,” it must be
shown that a parent was billed and/or sued and still refused to pay.11 We shall not subscribe to
that requirement as an essential prerequisite to a finding of unwillingness.
There are a significant number of states that interpret their version of the doctrine of
necessaries as placing liability on a child only when his or her parents are financially unable
to pay.12   These cases involve similar factual situations and comparable analyses to the other
cases discussed infra, except for the omission of the “unwilling” prong. 
The categories suggested in the Dissent should not be exclusive.  While Judge Raker
states that “unless a case falls into one of the three categories of cases . . ., I would not hold
13
the child responsible for the parents’ choices,” Dissent, slip op. at 18, we believe that there
may be other circumstances that qualify a parent as “unwilling,” even in a singular instance of
unwillingness such as is presented in the present case. 
To the non-exhaustive list fashioned by the Dissent, we add the factual context of the
present case, as explicated in Part III (D) of this opinion.  We do this mindful of the distinction
made by some states that a singular episode of a parent’s refusal to pay for a child’s
necessaries might not satisfy that state’s view of adequate evidence of  “unwillingness” so as
to trigger the minor’s liability.  Overweighing the arguable unfairness to the minor in the
balancing, at least in the present case, is the consideration of not placing hospitals and other
emergency health care providers in a situation where apparently financially-able individuals
may avoid paying for necessary medical treatment through a contrivance similar to that
demonstrated on the record of this case.
III.
Petitioner next asks us to repudiate the common law doctrine of necessaries in its
entirety and to hold that “this principle should never be accepted as valid Maryland law.”
According to Petitioner, the doctrine of necessaries creates a “patently unfair scenario” and
provides Maryland judges with the opportunity to “ignore the existing Maryland law,”
specifically, Maryland Rule 1-202(l), which includes “an individual under the age of 18 years”
in its definition of an “Individual under disability.”
A.
We acknowledge that this Court is not precluded from altering a common law rule in
14
situations where, “in light of changed conditions or increased knowledge, . . . the rule has
become unsound in the circumstances of modern life, a vestige of the past, no longer suitable
to our people.”  State v. Sowell, 353 Md. 713, 723, 728 A.2d 712, 717 (1999) (quoting State
v. Wiegmann, 350 Md. 585, 604, 714, A.2d 841, 850 (1998) (quoting Harrison v.
Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442, 459, 456 A.2d 894, 903 (1983)))
(citing Gaver v. Harrant, 316 Md. 17, 28, 557, A.2d 210, 216 (1989); State v. Minster, 302
Md. 240, 245-46, 486 A.2d 1197, 1199-1200 (1985); Adler v. American Standard
Corporation, 291 Md. 31, 42-43, 432 A.2d 494, 499 (1981); Condore v. Prince George’s
County, 289 Md. 516, 530-31, 425 A.2d 1011, 1018 (1981); Felder v. Butler, 292 Md. 174,
182-83, 438 A.2d 494, 499 (1981); Williams v. State, 292 Md. 201, 217, 438 A.2d 1301,
1309 (1981); Kline v. Ansell, 287 Md. 585, 590, 414 A.2d 929, 931 (1980).  As we elucidated
in Sowell:
“In considering whether a long-established common law rule—unchanged by the
legislature and thus reflective of this state’s public policy—is unsound in the
circumstances of modern life, we have always recognized that declaration of the
public policy of Maryland is normally the function of the General Assembly.”
We have recognized that the General Assembly’s failure to amend or abrogate
a common law rule sometimes reflects its desired public policy.
Sowell, 353 Md. at 723-24, 728 A.2d at 717-18 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Gaver,
316 Md. at 28-29, 557 A.2d at 216 (quoting Harrison, 295 Md. at 460, 456 A.2d at 903)).
Nevertheless, for the reasons provided infra, and based upon the facts of this case, we find no
reason either to abandon or abjure the doctrine of necessaries. 
B.
15
We pause to address Petitioner’s assertion that the reasoning of Garay, quoted supra,
should not be applied to the case before us because it is expressed in dicta that should “be
disavowed and rejected.”  See Petitioner’s Brief at 8.  During oral argument, Petitioner
explained that the language quoted, supra, is obiter dictum, which, using Black’s Law
Dictionary as a reference, Petitioner defines as “[w]ords of an opinion entirely unnecessary
for the decision of the case.” 
When a question of law is raised properly by the issues in a case and the Court supplies
a deliberate expression of its opinion upon that question, such opinion is not to be regarded
as obiter dictum, although the final judgment in the case may be rooted in another point also
raised by the record.  See Scott v. State, 297 Md. 235, 256, 465 A.2d 1126, 1137 (1983)
(Murphy, C.J., dissenting); Carstairs v. Cochran, 95 Md. 488, 499, 52 A. 601, 601 (1902)
(citing Monticello v. Baltimore City, 90 Md. 416, 45 A. 210 (1900)).  In Carstairs, we noted
that
[i]t may be difficult to frame a concise definition of an obiter dictum applicable
to every such expression of opinion, and some Courts incline to the rule that the
most deliberate expression of opinion, upon a question distinctly raised in the
record, and fully argued by counsel, may nevertheless be regarded as a dictum,
unless essential to the actual disposition made of the case.  But as Bouvier well
says: “It is difficult to see why, in a philosophic point of view, the opinion of the
Court is not as persuasive on all the points which were so involved in the cause
that it was the duty of counsel to argue them, and which were deliberately passed
on by the Court, as if the decision had hung upon but one point;” and in Maryland
the rule is in accord with this view.  In Alexander v. Worthington, 5 Md. 471,
it is said: “All that is necessary in Maryland to render the decision of the Court
of Appeals authoritative on any point decided, is to show that there was an
application of the judicial mind to the precise question adjudged;” and in
Michael v. Morey, 26 Md. 239, it was said that a decision there cited, could not
be said to be obiter dictum, “as the question was directly involved in the issues
13The Dissent (slip op. at 5-6) concludes that the mind of the Court in Garay “was never
‘drawn to nor distinctly expressed upon’” the specific issue in the present case (whether a child
is liable when his/her parents “inexplicably fail to pay for an isolated necessary medical cost
but otherwise provide for and support the child.”).  Although Garay did not assay to define the
scope of “unwilling” (because it was not called upon to do so), the Court clearly expressed its
mind with regard to the subject of generally what triggers a minor’s liability under the doctrine.
Thus, Garay’s iteration that a parent’s inability or unwillingness to pay were such triggers is
not obiter dicta. 
16
of law raised by the demurrer to the bill, and the mind of the Court was directly
drawn to, and distinctly expressed upon the subject.”
Carstairs, 95 Md. at 499, 52 A. at 602.
Having reviewed the Garay language in question, supra at 7-8, we conclude that it (“we
agree”) reflects the application of this Court’s judicial mind to one of the underlying questions
presented in Garay.13  We therefore reject Petitioner’s request to abandon the principles
discussed there.  
C.
Petitioner repeatedly chants the mantra that a minor does not possess the legal capacity
to enter into a binding promise or contract.  Specifically, Petitioner asserts that any implied
or express contract she may have entered into by receiving Respondent’s care should be
considered void ab initio in light of her disability as a minor at the time.  To support this
contention, Petitioner relies on Maryland Rule 1-202(l), which provides that “an individual
under the age of 18 years” shall be considered an “Individual under disability.” 
“Generally, the law regards contractual obligations of minors as voidable, giving the
minor child the choice whether to avoid the contract, or to perform it.”  Garay, 332 Md. at
17
267-68, 631 A.2d at 443 (citing McBriety v. Spear, 191 Md. 221, 60 A.2d 528 (1947); Amey
v. Cockey, 73 Md. 297, 20 A. 1071 (1891); 4 RICHARD A. LORD, WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS,
§ 8:14 (4th ed. 1992)).  In Garay, we adopted the rationale of the Supreme Court of Tennessee
in Gardner v. Flowers, 529 S.W.2d 708 (Tenn. 1975), which held that a child was liable for
the medical expenses she incurred following an automobile accident.  Garay, 332 Md. at 370,
631 A.2d at 444.  In Gardner, the court found that, although parents are required by law to
provide for their children’s necessaries, a contract entered into by a minor child is presumed
to be for non-necessaries and, therefore, voidable and, in some cases, even void ab initio.  Id.
(citing Gardner, 529 S.W.2d at 710).  The Gardner court, however, concluded that “the
inability of parents to pay for essential medical treatment for an infant renders such treatment
a necessary for which the infant is liable.”  Id. (quoting Gardner, 529 S.W.2d at 711).  
Contracts entered into by minor children for non-necessaries, therefore, ordinarily are
only voidable.  Thus, only after a minor has disaffirmed the contract for non-necessaries may
the contract ordinarily be considered null and void.  Notwithstanding this, a minor can be held
to a contract for necessaries under certain circumstances.  Under the facts of this case,
Petitioner is incorrect in arguing that she, while a minor child, inherently did not possess the
legal capacity to promise or contract for payment of her medically-necessitated hospital bill.
D.
Petitioner suggests that Respondent should have brought the suit against Petitioner’s
father, as her guardian or next friend, within the applicable statute of limitations, three years,
following the provision of the treatment of Petitioner.  For the purposes of this argument,
14We need not resolve here whether the burden of production and persuasion regarding
the willingness or ability of Petitioner’s father to pay for her treatment would rest with
Respondent as elements of its claim or with Petitioner as a defense to the claim against her
as an individual.  To the extent that her father’s willingness or ability to pay could have been
plead and proven as a defense, she did not argue as such in either the District Court or the
Circuit Court.
Moreover, even as Petitioner’s argument goes, Respondent’s suit against Petitioner was
brought within three years of providing the medical treatment and, obviously, within three years
of her reaching adulthood.  The treatment was provided on 7-8 March 1997.  Petitioner became
eighteen on 22 December 1998.  Suit was filed on 12 November 1999.
15  Petitioner states in her brief that the Erie benefits check “was cashed with the
proceeds being kept by [Petitioner’s] father.”  See Petitioner’s Brief at 7.  Respondent notes
in its brief that Petitioner admits that “[t]he vehicle driven by [Petitioner] was totally destroyed
and promptly replaced by the father.”  See Respondent’s Brief at 10 (quoting Petitioner’s Brief
at 9).
18
Petitioner is willing to assume that Respondent possessed a valid claim and would have been
awarded a judgment against her father.  Although we agree that Respondent could have brought
such a suit, we disagree that this was Respondent’s only option.  The doctrine of necessaries
states that a minor may be held liable for the necessaries, including medical necessaries, which
he or she is afforded when his or her parents’ are either unable or unwilling to pay.  Consistent
with this principle, Respondent, on the present facts, could have: (a) sued Petitioner, while she
was still a minor, and her father; or, (b), as was done in the present case, sued Petitioner upon
her reaching the age of majority.14  
We note that both parties agree that Erie paid the proceeds from the insurance claim
to Petitioner’s father, facially earmarked for Respondent’s charges, but the  proceeds were not
forwarded to Respondent.15  Rather, the record supports that the PIP  proceeds were applied
16 Petitioner’s attorney, in the Circuit Court, stated that the “PIP money” was used “to
buy her [Petitioner] a new car.”  Prior to that, the record only vaguely hinted how the PIP
proceeds were utilized by Mr. Schmidt, Jr., i.e., “provided to Michelle to use for items not
related to [Respondent].”  See letter of 22 March 2000 from Erie’s claims supervisor to
Petitioner’s attorney.
17 On this record, Petitioner may have been able to implead her father in this litigation,
whose parental duties during Petitioner’s minority included paying for her necessaries, such
(continued...)
19
by the father to purchase a replacement automobile for Petitioner.16  Ordinarily, an automobile
is not a necessary a parent is required to furnish  to a minor child.  There is no evidence in this
record that having an automobile was a necessary, within the meaning of the doctrine of
necessaries, for Petitioner.  The father’s refusal to apply the insurance proceeds to the debt
owed Respondent—the existence of which he was well aware of as it was the facial premise
for which he and Petitioner applied to Erie in the first place—is a clear indication of his
unwillingness to pay for Petitioner’s medical expenses at a time fairly contemporaneous with
the provision of the medical services, i.e., within 60 days.  We agree with the Circuit Court,
which found that, as an adult, Petitioner is liable for the medical treatment expenses which she
incurred while a minor.  We find no error in the Circuit Court’s conclusions that Petitioner
could be held liable for those medical expenditures provided for her benefit under the doctrine
of necessaries, which trumps her defense that she was under the disability of minority when
she entered into the implied promise to pay Respondent for the needed medical treatment.
Lastly, we agree that the record supports that Petitioner’s father was unwilling to pay for his
then minor daughter’s medical necessaries, which, in turn, left Petitioner primarily liable for
the debt to Respondent.17 
17(...continued)
as the medical expenses in issue.  If Petitioner’s father was able, but merely unwilling, to pay
for her medical necessaries, it would not violate public policy for Petitioner, as an adult, to sue
her parent for failure to provide for her necessaries.  We note that
[t]he principal public policy in support of the judicially created
parent-child immunity doctrine is “the protection of family integrity and
harmony and of parental discretion in the discipline and care of the child . . . .”
Eagan v. Calhoun, 347 Md. [72,] 75, 698 A.2d [1097,] 1099 [(1997)]
*
*
*. 
 
Under 
circumstances 
where 
the 
public 
policy 
reasons underlying
parent-child immunity in tort actions have no application, i.e., under
circumstances where, at the time of the tort action, there is no parent-minor
child relationship which will be disrupted by the tort suit, this Court has
generally held that the suit is not barred by the doctrine of parent-child
immunity. See Eagan, 347 Md. at 76-77, 698 A.2d at 1099-1100 (In prior
cases, “we essentially adopted the view . . . that, although the doctrine was useful
within the bounds of a normal parent-child relationship, it had no rational
justification where the foundation did not exist”); Warren v. Warren, 336 Md.
618, 650 A.2d 252 [(1994)] (majority opinion), 336 Md. 618 at 631, 650 A.2d
252, 258 (Raker, J., concurring) (Parent-child immunity doctrine does not bar
a child’s negligence action against his stepparent; as emphasized in the
concurring opinion, the stepparent did not stand in loco parentis to the child);
Hatzinicolas v. Protopapas, 314 Md. 340, 357, 550 A.2d 947, 956 (1988)
(Parent-child immunity is inapplicable to a tort suit brought by a minor child
against her father's business partner, even though the father and business partner
may have been joint tortfeasors and the partner might be able to obtain
contribution from the father, with the Court stating: “Preservation of the family
interests . . . does not require that we extend parent-child immunity to bar any
recovery from a parent’s partner”); Waltzinger v. Birsner, 212 Md. 107, 128
A.2d 617 [(1957)] (An emancipated child may sue his or her parent in tort);
Mahnke v. Moore, 197 Md. 61, 68, 77 A.2d 923, 926 (1951) (“there can be no
basis for the contention that the daughter’s suit against her father’s estate would
be contrary to public policy, for the simple reason that there is no home at all
in which discipline and tranquility are to be preserved”). 
The above-cited cases clearly reflect the principle that the court created
doctrine of parent-child immunity is inapplicable where a parent-minor child
relationship does not exist and where, consequently, the public policy
underlying the doctrine would not be served.  
(continued...)
20
17(...continued)
Bushey v. Northern Assur. Co. of Am., 362 Md. 626, 653-56, 766 A.2d 598, 612-613 (2001)
(Eldridge, J., concurring).  In this case, parent-child immunity is inapplicable where Petitioner
has reached the age of majority and, therefore, a parent-minor child relationship no longer
exists.  Permitting such under the circumstances of this case would operate to vindicate the
strong public policy (and, indeed, the law, see Family Law Art. § 5-203 (b)(1)) that a parent
may not avoid lightly his or her primary responsibility to provide for a child’s necessaries.
This blunts the Dissent’s criticism that our resolution of the present case reduces the pressure
on parents to fulfill their primary responsibility.  See Dissent, slip op. at 13-14.
21
E.
Lastly, Petitioner offers us the following hypothetical as a means of demonstrating  why
the doctrine of necessaries places minors unreasonably at risk for future lawsuits.
A newborn child receives emergency medical care soon after birth which
resulted in its survival.  As counsel for the hospital I could immediately file suit,
without notice, to hold the newborn liable for the unpaid bill alleging the
necessaries doctrine as a basis for liability.  The parent or guardian fails to
establish that it is unable to pay the bill.  A judgment is entered personally
against the newborn infant in favor of the hospital.  Alternatively, as counsel I
could wait for a period of 18 years and sue the former newborn infant as an
adult, obtain judgment, and then attach this child’s wages to satisfy the judgment
as was done exactly in this case.  As counsel for the hospital I could file suit in
all such cases to avoid collection efforts and hiring an accounts representative.
Petitioner’s Brief at 10.  
In Garay, we cautioned that “whether a parent or guardian is able and willing to supply
necessaries varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and is heavily dependent on the facts of
each individual case.”  Garay, 332 Md. at 369, 631 A.2d at 444.  The evidence  of record
indicates that Petitioner’s father applied for and received benefits from Erie ostensibly for
22
payment of Respondent’s bill, but instead applied the proceeds toward a replacement vehicle
for Petitioner.  Our decision in this case is dependent upon the fact that Petitioner’s father
diverted the PIP proceeds earmarked for Respondent’s bill to other purposes, which brings this
case within the limitations delineated in Garay that permit a minor to be held liable for
medical necessaries that his or her parents are unable or, as in the case here, unwilling to pay.
Thus, in Petitioner’s hypothetical, should a hospital immediately file suit against the minor
under the doctrine of necessaries, the minor’s likely defense would be that, under Garay and
Pepper, the minor’s parents would be liable to pay for the medical necessaries of their child.
If the minor’s parents were “truly unable to pay for such expenses, leaving the child or his or
her estate potentially bound in contract, principles of reciprocity [would] demand that the child
be given the opportunity to recover those expenses from the wrongdoer.”  Pepper, 346 Md.
at 694, 697 A.2d at 1365 (citing Garay, 332 Md. at 371, 631 A.2d at 445).  If no wrongdoer
existed, as in Petitioner’s hypothetical, then the minor ultimately would be responsible for the
debt.  Should the hypothetical hospital wait until the minor reached the age of majority to sue
to recover the medical expenses under the doctrine of necessaries, the defendant could defend
on the basis that his or her parents had been able or willing to pay for his or her medical
necessaries at the time of incursion while he or she was a minor.  Failing such proof, the
greater public policy dictates that the former patient pay for the benefits received when given
the medically-necessary care by the hospital.  Whatever unfairness may inhere in this principle
is overweighed by the consideration of not placing hospitals and other emergency health care
providers in a situation where financially-able individuals might avoid paying for necessary
23
medical treatment.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  COSTS TO BE
PAID BY PETITIONER.
Dissenting Opinion follows:
Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County
Case No. C00-505
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 119
September Term, 2000
_____________________________________________
_
MICHELLE M. SCHMIDT
v.
PRINCE GEORGE’S HOSPITAL
_____________________________________________
_
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harrell
Battaglia,
JJ.
_____________________________________________
_
Dissenting Opinion by Raker, J., in which Bell, C.J., and
Eldridge, J., join
_____________________________________________
_
     Filed:    November 15, 2001
Raker, J., dissenting, joined by Bell, C.J., and Eldridge, J.:
-2-
18It is not entirely clear why the passage of sixty or more days matters.  The time frame
set out by the majority raises the question whether the majority would find petitioner’s father
unwilling to pay for his daughter’s medical expenses if he had spent the insurance proceeds
sixty-five days, ninety days or a year after the accident.  Setting out such a time frame does
little, if anything, in the way of providing us or prospective litigants with a means to determine
whether a parent is unwilling to pay for a child’s medical bills.   
Today the majority restates a fairly common rule regarding a minor’s liability for the
cost of medical necessities: where a parent is unable or unwilling to pay for a minor child’s
necessary emergency medical treatment at the time of incursion of the treatment, the child,
upon reaching the age of majority, may be held liable under the doctrine of necessities for the
cost of the medical care.  Maj. op. at 6-7.  Other courts have employed similar rules, finding
minors liable for necessary medical treatment where the parents are unable, refuse, or fail to
provide for such treatment.  See John D. Hodson, Annotation, Infant’s Liability for Medical,
Dental, or Hospital Services, 53 A.L.R. 4th 1249 (2001).  Applying this rule to the case before
us, the majority finds the petitioner liable for the cost of medical care rendered while she was
a minor.  The majority reasons that the failure of petitioner’s father to apply the insurance
proceeds recovered after petitioner’s accident towards the cost of petitioner’s medical care
is “a clear indication of his unwillingness at the time to pay for petitioner’s medical expenses
at a time fairly contemporaneous with the provision of medical services, i.e., within 60 days.”
Maj. op. at 20.18  
I disagree with the majority’s holding for two reasons.  First, the majority finds the
petitioner’s father unwilling to pay for her medical bills without discussing what constitutes
unwillingness.  Indeed, the majority’s reasoning is based largely on cases that do not touch on
-3-
19In finding petitioner liable, the majority states that it is “mindful of the distinction
made by some states that a singular episode of a parent’s refusal to pay for a child’s
necessaries might not satisfy the state’s view of adequate evidence of ‘unwillingness’ so as to
trigger the minor’s liability.”  Maj. op at 13-14.  Nonetheless, the majority finds that
“[o]verweighing the arguable unfairness to the minor in the balancing, at least in the present
case, is the consideration of not placing hospitals . . . in a situation where apparently
financially-able individuals may avoid paying for necessary medical treatment through a
(continued...)
the meaning or import of unwillingness.  Second, this State’s common law and statutory law
does not support the proposition that a child, supported by his or her parents, should be held
responsible for isolated necessary medical costs that the parents fail to pay.  Despite the fact
that parents are obligated by statute to support their children, the majority leaves minors who
are supported by their parents liable for their parents’ choices, regardless of what those
choices are or whether the choices actually reflect unwillingness to pay for necessary medical
care.   
The majority finds petitioner liable to  respondent because her father was unwilling to
pay for petitioner’s medical expenses, not because her father was unable to pay.  As stated
above, the majority believes that the father’s failure to use insurance proceeds to pay the
hospital for his daughter’s medical bills is a “clear indication” of his unwillingness to pay for
petitioner’s medical expenses.  Maj. op. at 20.  There is little case law in this State, or any
other state, to help us decide when a parent is unwilling to pay for his or her child’s necessary
medical costs.  What little law there is, however, suggests that where a child is supported by
his or her parents, the parents’ failure or default on a single necessary expense does not usually
render the child liable for that expense.19  
-4-
19(...continued)
contrivance similar to that demonstrated on the record of this case.”  Id. at 14.  
We agree that the hospital should be paid.  The hospital, however, should have sought
recovery from petitioner’s father rather than waiting to sue petitioner.  The majority’s decision
to protect the hospital despite the hospital’s failure to determine whether petitioner’s father
was actually unwilling to pay for petitioner’s medical bills will leave children liable even where
it is the parent and not the child who contrives to avoid paying an isolated medical cost.  
As support for its reading of “unwilling,” the majority relies on a circular reading of two
decisions: Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 631 A.2d 429 (1993), and Johns Hopkins
Hosp. v. Pepper, 346 Md. 679, 697 A.2d 1358 (1997).  Both Garay and Pepper held that a
minor may recover medical expenses from the tortfeasor who caused the minor’s injuries.
While neither case involved a minor sued for unpaid medical expenses, in order to justify
allowing a minor to sue a tortfeasor for medical expenses, both cases relied on the following
reasoning: “when parents are unwilling or truly unable to pay for such expenses, leaving the
child or his or her estate potentially bound in contract, principles of reciprocity demand that
the child be given the opportunity to recover those expenses from the wrongdoer.”  Pepper,
346 Md. at 694, 697 A.2d at 1365; Garay, 332 Md. at 371, 631 A.2d at 445.  Thus, in order
to reach the conclusion that the child should be able to recover medical expenses from a
tortfeasor, both Garay and Pepper assumed, without analysis, that a child is liable for medical
expenses when the parents are unable or unwilling to pay.  
Despite the fact that Garay and Pepper did not touch on the implications of finding a
child liable for medical costs, the majority  reasons as follows: 
“The rationales underlying Garay and Pepper recognize that
public policy and justice demand that an injured minor have the
-5-
20Garay followed the rationale of Gardner v. Flowers, 529 S.W.2d 708 (Tenn. 1975),
which focused on whether a minor’s mother was unable to pay for the minor’s necessities. 
right to recover incurred medical expenses from a third-party
tort-feasor, where the child’s parents are unable or unwilling to
pay for those expenses, because the medical provider may sue
to recover them . . . .  By parity of reasoning, it would seem that
such a child, upon attaining adulthood, may be liable in contract
to pay for medical necessaries provided to him or her while a
minor, if the parents were unable or unwilling to pay for such
necessaries.” 
Maj. op. at 9 (emphasis in original).  Unfortunately, there is no parity between Garay, Pepper
and the case before us.  As stated above, Garay and Pepper did not attempt to delve into the
meaning of “unwilling.”
20  
By restating an unanalyzed assumption in Garay and Pepper as its conclusion, the
majority leaves us with no guidance as to when a parent should be found unwilling to pay for
their child’s necessary medical expenses.  All we are left with is the majority’s conclusory and,
I believe, incorrect statement that the father’s failure to turn over insurance proceeds to the
plaintiff is a “clear” indication of the father’s unwillingness to pay.  This provides no clearer
a definition of unwillingness than did this Court’s opaque statement in Garay: “Most courts
appear to recognize this formulation of the necessaries doctrine, but the determination of
whether a parent or guardian is able and willing to supply necessaries varies from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and is heavily dependent on the facts of each individual case.”  Garay, 332 Md.
at 369, 631 A.2d at 444.  
The majority also brushes aside petitioner’s argument that Garay’s discussion of
-6-
willingness constitutes obiter dictum.  Specifically, the majority states that when a question
of law is raised by the issues in a case and the Court supplies a deliberate expression of its
opinion upon that question, such opinion is not to be regarded as obiter dictum.  This appears
to be a sensible definition, but in applying it, the majority relies on a long quotation from
Carstairs v. Cochran, 95 Md. 488, 52 A. 601 (1902).  In Carstairs, this Court stated that
“[a]ll that is necessary in Maryland to render the decision of the Court of Appeals authoritative
on any point decided, is to show that there was an application of the judicial mind to the precise
question adjudged.”  Id. at 499-500, 52 A. at 601 (quoting Alexander v. Worthington, 5 Md.
471, 72 (1854)).  Relying heavily on this one sentence, the majority concludes that in Garay,
this Court applied its “judicial mind” to the issue of unwillingness when we wrote that “we
agree” that the doctrine of necessaries is sufficient to hold a minor child liable for medical
expenses if it can be shown that his or her parent is unwilling or truly unable to pay them.  Maj.
op. at 17 (citing Garay, 332 Md. at 371, 631 A.2d at 445).  If a mere statement of agreement
with a very broad rule constitutes an application of this Court’s judicial mind to single word
within that rule, then I fear we have expanded the precedential value of our decisions to the
point of absurdity.
If the majority had relied on a more complete reading of Carstairs and  assessed the
scope of this Court’s decision in Garay, I believe it would have reached a different conclusion
as to the impact of Garay on the case before us.  In the sentence from Carstairs immediately
following that relied upon by the majority, this Court provided some guidance as to what is
meant by “application of the judicial mind.”  We explained that “in Michael v. Morey, 26 Md.
-7-
239, it was said that a decision there cited, could not be said to be obiter dictum, ‘as the
question was directly involved in the issues of law raised by the demurred to the bill, and the
mind of the court was directly drawn to and distinctly expressed upon the subject.’”  Carstairs,
95 Md. at 500, 52 A. at 601.  
Even a quick reading of Garay reveals that in order to reach the conclusion that a child
should be able to sue a tortfeasor for medical expenses, this Court relied, without analysis, on
the principle that a child may be liable for medical care where the parents are unwilling to pay.
We did not address, even tangentially, the issue in this case: whether a child may be held liable
when his or her parents inexplicably fail to pay for an isolated necessary medical cost but
otherwise provide for and support the child.  The mind of this Court was never “drawn to nor
distinctly expressed upon” this subject.  
Rather than analyze the situations in which a parent could be found unable or unwilling
to pay for a child’s necessary medical care, the Garay court simply observed that: 
“Most courts appear to recognize this formulation of the
necessaries doctrine, but the determination of whether a parent or
guardian is able and willing to supply necessaries varies from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and is heavily dependent on the facts
of each individual case.”
Garay, 332 Md. at 369, 631 A.2d at 444.  This observation explicitly disclaims any attempt
to set out the circumstances under which a parent may be found unwilling to pay for a child’s
necessary medical care.  Therefore, Garay’s reference to the liability of a child resulting from
a parent’s unwillingness to pay for medical costs does not help answer the question before us,
and should, as petitioner argues, be regarded as dictum. 
-8-
21It is important to note that none of these cases, nor any presented by the majority,
deals solely with the question of unwillingness.  Certainly, none of the cases we have found
confront a scenario like that before us, where a father who otherwise provides for his child
inexplicably fails to pay for the child’s necessary medical care after the cost of the care is
incurred. 
Those cases that do appear to touch on the question of willingness have generally found
parents unwilling to pay for necessary medical expenses in three situations: first, where the
parent has abandoned the child; second, where the parent contributes absolutely nothing to the
child’s support; and third, where the child or parent has  recovered medical expenses from the
tortfeasor.21  The case before us does not fall into any of these categories, and I see no reason,
particularly on this record, to hold the petitioner liable for medical expenses incurred while
she was a child and supported by her parents.
It is sensible to hold that a parent who has truly abandoned a child is unwilling to pay for
anything for the child, including medical care.  In In re Dzwonkiewicz’s Estate, 203 N.W. 671
(Mich. 1925), the Supreme Court of Michigan found a child liable for emergency medical care
given the child.  The child’s father had abandoned the family.  Id.  In Westrate v. Schipper, 279
N.W. 870 (Mich. 1938), the  court found that in Dzwonkiewicz, the question of inability  or
unwillingness was easily settled because the father had abandoned the child.  Id. at 872.  In
contrast, Westrate involved a child who was living at home with her parents at the time medical
care was provided.  The court found that under such circumstances the child could not be liable,
absent proof that the child’s father was “not willing and able to pay for the necessaries.”  See
id. at 871-72. 
-9-
It is also reasonable to find a parent unwilling to pay for the child’s medical care where
the parent contributes nothing to the child’s support.  In Trainer v. Trumbull, 6 N.E. 761
(Mass. 1886), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts stated: 
“[A]n infant who is already well provided for in respect to board,
clothing and other articles suitable for his condition is not to be
held responsible if any one supplies to him other board clothing,
&c., although such person did not know that the infant was already
well supplied.  So, on the other hand, the mere fact that an infant,
as in this case, had a father, mother, and guardian, no one of
whom did anything towards his care or support, does not
prevent his being bound to pay for that which was actually
necessary for him when furnished.”
Id. at 762 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).  Likewise, in Strong v. Foote, 42 Conn. 203
(1875), the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut found a child liable for the cost of
necessary dental work where the child’s guardian did not show any effort or intention to repair
or preserve the child’s teeth.  Id. at 205.      
Finally, some courts have found parents unwilling to pay for their child’s necessary
medical care if the child recovers damages for medical costs from the tortfeasor and the parent
nonetheless refuses to pay for the care.  This line of cases started with Cole v. Wagner, 150
S.E. 339 (N.C. 1929), where the Supreme Court of North Carolina stated: 
“[W]e do not think that the fact in regard to his father’s usual
support can absolve the infant from liability, under the facts and
circumstances of this case.  The infant was seriously injured, and
by fair inference was immediately taken to the hospital and his
life and usefulness was saved by the hospital, medical and surgical
attention. . . .  During the period of treatment the father paid for
no hospital, medical or surgical treatment for the infant.  It seems
that he was either unable, at least he did not provide for the infant
. . . .  The infant now has an estate, and it is unthinkable that the
-10-
guardian of the infant would not pay the reasonable expense for
saving the child’s life and usefulness.”   
Id. at 341.  Similarly, in Bitting v. Goss, 166 S.E. 302 (N.C. 1932), the court found Cole
controlling where the minor had recovered damages from the torfeasor, the father had
recovered damages for medical expenses, and the father subsequently refused to pay the
medical care provider.
The rule in Cole, that a child living with his parents may be liable for the parents’
unexplained failure to pay for the child’s necessary medical care, has generally been limited
to situations where the child recovered damages from the tortfeasor for medical costs.  In
Madison Gen. Hosp. v. Haack, 369 N.W.2d 663 (Wisc. 1985), the Supreme Court of
Wisconsin stated that “courts may view the Cole rule as applicable only to situations in which
the child’s estate consists of damages which include recovery for medical and hospital
expenses.”  Id. at 667.  See also Greenville Hosp. Sys.  v. Smith, 239 S.E. 2d 657, 659 (S.C.
1977) (“in Cole, the North Carolina Court permitted the recovery from the minor’s estate
because the estate consisted of damages recovered by the minor’s guardian which included
medical and hospital expenses”); Lane v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 269 S.E.2d 711, 716
(N.C. 1980) (“Unlike the situation in Cole, in this case there is no issue of a separate estate
or recovery in damages . . . .”).    
Cole and the cases following it thus reach the fair and defensible conclusion that where
a minor has recovered damages to pay for the cost of medical care, the care provider should
be able to recover those costs from the minor.  As the court found in Cole, to allow a child to
-11-
recover damages for medical expenses incurred by the child and then deny the care provider
the right to recover its costs from the child, “would be blowing hot and cold in the same
breath.”  Cole, 150 S.E.2d at 341.
These three readings of “unwilling” hold a child liable for necessary medical costs only
if it is relatively certain that the parents cannot pay for the expenses or if the child has
recovered damages for the very costs the medical care provider is seeking.  The cases do not
hold the child liable where the parents, who otherwise support their child, fail to pay for
isolated medical expenses.  Moreover, the cases, other than Cole and its progeny, determine
the issue of unwillingness based on the parent’s conduct before the child required medical
care.  This makes sense because basing a finding of unwillingness on the parents’ conduct after
medical expenses are incurred would enable parents who otherwise support their children to
selectively avoid paying for costs of necessary medical expenses.  
In those cases following Cole, unwillingness is determined after medical costs are
incurred.  Cole does not apply to the case before us for two reasons.  First, the petitioner did
not personally recover any medical expenses from the tortfeasor.  Therefore, if the petitioner
is found liable, she will not be able to pay the costs out of her recovery from the tortfeasor.
The second reason Cole does not apply here is that courts following Cole have looked for clear
proof of the parents’ unwillingness to pay.  In Bitting the plaintiff contacted the parents who
affirmatively refused to pay.  The court observed that the “plaintiff has demanded payment for
said services from T.R. Goss [the father], but no part of the said reasonable value of the
services has been paid, and the said T.R. Goss has at all times and still refuses to pay the same
-12-
22The record is unclear whether the father or the grandfather received the bills for
petitioner’s medical expenses and the insurance proceeds from the insurance carrier.  As the
majority points out, petitioner’s counsel was not clear as to whether the petitioner’s father or
grandfather received the insurance proceeds.  Maj. op. at 2 n.4.  The facts on this issue are
made more confusing by the fact that the check from the insurance company was made out to
Lewis Schmidt without any indication whether the money was directed to the father, Lewis
Schmidt, Jr., or the grandfather, Lewis Schmidt, Sr.  A letter from Erie Insurance Group to
petitioner’s counsel states that the Lewis Schmidt, Jr., was the “Erie Insured,” while Lewis
Schmidt, Sr., was counsel’s client.  Finally, petitioner’s lawyer argued before the Circuit Court
that all the bills for petitioner’s medical expenses were sent to petitioner’s grandfather rather
than her father.  
or any part thereof.”  Bitting, 166 S.E. at 302.  Here, by contrast, it does not appear from the
record that the father was contacted by the hospital until the time his daughter had reached
majority and was sued by the hospital.22  So far as I can tell from the record, the father  never
affirmatively refused to pay the hospital.  Since the father was otherwise supporting his
daughter, without further proof, there is no basis for concluding that his failure to use
insurance proceeds to pay for her medical care reflects unwillingness to pay. 
In contrast to all of the cases discussed above, the majority’s result would enable
petitioner’s father to spend the insurance proceeds on whatever he pleased, leaving his daughter
liable to the hospital.  Despite the fact that the father supported petitioner during her
childhood, the father could have, in this instance, used the funds for his own purposes rather
than pay his daughter’s medical bills, thereby rendering her responsible for this necessary cost.
The majority’s holding is made more troubling by the fact that the record is anything
but clear as to the father’s unwillingness to pay for his daughter’s medical costs.  The majority
recounts the father’s actions in recovering money for his daughter’s injuries as follows: 
-13-
“Soon after her release from the hospital, petitioner filed for
benefits under the coverage provided in her father’s Erie policy.
During the claim process, petitioner and her father provided
several documents to Erie regarding her medical expenses.  On
16 March 1997, petitioner and her father signed a Disclosure
Authorization, authorizing petitioner’s treating physician to
furnish Erie with records of her post-accident treatment.  On 1
May 1997, etitioner and her father signed an Assignment and
Authorization of benefits under the PIP coverage instructing and
directing Erie to pay directly to her treating physician the amount
owed him.”  
Maj. op. at 3.  Contrary to the majority’s reading of these facts, it seems equally reasonable
to conclude that the father was in fact willing to pay for his daughter’s medical expenses.  Why
else would he have assigned the benefits to his daughter’s doctor?  It is not at all clear that the
father, who supported his daughter during her youth and assigned the insurance benefits to his
daughter’s physicians, was unwilling to pay for his daughter’s necessary medical costs.  
The majority also fails to acknowledge that, as mentioned above, the hospital failed to
contact the father until suit was brought in this case.  The hospital had no first hand knowledge
that the father was unwilling to pay.  Despite respondent’s protestations, there is no reasonable
excuse for not having inquired of the father.  The hospital admits that it had the father’s name
and phone number before the District Court trial.  In this day and age, a name and phone number
usually is enough information to contact a person.  Again, I see no basis, certainly not a clear
one, for claiming that the father’s actions indicate unwillingness to pay for his daughter’s
medical bills.
In Garay, Judge Karwacki, writing for the Court,  pointed to North Carolina Baptist
Hosp. v. Franklin, 405 S.E.2d 814 (N.C. 1991), as an example of a case where parents were
-14-
found willing and able to pay for their child’s necessary medical costs.  Garay, 332 Md. at
369, 631 A.2d at 444.  As in this case, the parents in Franklin never paid for a necessary
medical cost incurred by their child.  The court, however, refused to find the parents unwilling
or unable to pay because they had requested the medical care and agreed to pay for it.
Franklin, 405 S.E.2d at 816.  Unlike the parents in Cole, who had done nothing to obtain
necessary medical treatment for their child, the parents in Franklin had “done everything that
any parent could possibly do for its child in regard to necessaries except pay for them after the
debt was incurred.”  Id. at 817.  The court concluded that “[t]o hold otherwise . . . would make
children the guarantors of their parents’ debts for clothes, lodging, schooling, medical care and
other necessaries.”  Id.    In the case before us, the petitioner’s father is more similar to the
parents in Franklin than the parents in Cole or the other cases discussed above.  Petitioner’s
father had done all the things a parent would do under the circumstances except pay for the debt
incurred.  
The majority’s analysis of unwillingness is also out of synch with Maryland Code
(1957, 1999 Repl. Vol., 2000 Supp.), § 5-203(b)(1) of the Family Law Article, which provides
that the parents of a minor child “are jointly and severally responsible for the child’s support,
care, nurture, welfare, and education . . . .”  This Court repeatedly has found that the obligation
placed upon a parent to provide for the care and welfare of a minor is “not a perfunctory one,
to be performed only at the voluntary pleasure or whimsical desire of the parent.”  Palmer v.
State, 223 Md. 341, 351, 164 A.2d 467, 473 (1960); Middleton v. Middleton, 329 Md. 627,
633, 620 A.2d 1363, 1366 (1993).  
-15-
In keeping with the statutory view of a parent’s duty to provide for a child’s care,
petitioner’s father should not be allowed to escape liability for the costs of medical care
merely because he decided, after the care was rendered, not to transfer insurance proceeds to
the care provider.  This is particularly true where the record indicates that the hospital never
contacted the father to determine whether he was willing to pay.  The majority altogether
ignores that the respondent agreed at oral argument that under this statute, even if the parents
are truly unwilling to pay for medical care given their child, the parents, not the child, should
be sued because liability is a statutory responsibility, irrespective of unwillingness.
It is also important to note that the majority’s application of Garay and Pepper distorts
the meaning of disability.  Maryland Rule 1-202(l) defines a person under disability as “an
individual under the age of 18 years or an individual incompetent by reason of mental
incapacity.”  As the majority acknowledges, minors are under a disability and their contracts
are therefore voidable.  Maj. op. at 6.  A minor under disability is not merely shielded from suit
until the age of eighteen.  He or she may always defend on the basis of disability, even after
reaching the age of majority.   
As a result of the majority’s erroneous application of Garay, in a case where parents
inexplicably fail to pay the hospital fees associated with their child’s birth, the hospital is now
relieved of any responsibility to notify the child’s parents of the hospital’s intent to sue.
Instead, the hospital may wait eighteen years until the child reaches the age of majority.
Thereafter, the hospital may sue the child rather than the parent even if the parents raised and
supported the child until the age of majority and paid for all other necessary costs.  This
-16-
fundamentally changes the meaning of disability.  The focus of the inquiry regarding disability
is no longer on the overall state of the child’s relationship with his or her parents, but on the
parents’ decision to pay a single necessary medical cost after the cost is incurred.
Under the majority’s reasoning, a child, upon turning age eighteen, may become liable
for any necessary medical cost that the child’s parents neglected to pay.  The child is liable
whether or not the claimant ever asks the parents if they are willing to pay.  The child is liable
even where the parent inexplicably chooses a single occasion on which they will not pay for
their child’s needs.  This manner of piercing the shield of disability stands in stark contrast to
the cases discussed above, where there was strong evidence that no one other than the child was
or would be willing to pay for the medical care.  In those cases, it was almost certain that the
medical care provider would not be able to recover from anyone if the child was not forced to
pay.  The majority’s reasoning transforms disability from a shield protecting those too young
to be bound to contracts into a starting gate, after which medical care providers are free to sue
children for even the most isolated cost that the child’s parents inexplicably fail to pay.
In closing, I believe that the majority should have exercised greater caution in finding
that petitioner’s father was unwilling to pay for his daughter’s medical bills.  In Pepper, we
confronted the question whether a family with a combined income of $21,000, two children,
and pre-majority medical expenses for one child in excess of $1,100,000 was able to pay for
their child’s medical expenses.  Although the inability of the parents to pay for their child’s
medical bills may have been more obvious in Pepper than the father’s unwillingness to pay in
this case, we did not decide whether the parents were in fact unable to pay.  Instead, we wrote:
-17-
“Whether or not parents are able to afford necessary medical care
for their negligently injured minor child will vary from case to
case according to the circumstances of the parties involved,
including, but not limited to, parental income, existing financial
assets and obligations, the number of children in the family,
available insurance coverage, the cost of living and inflation rate,
whether or not both parents work, or are even capable of working
in light of the child's injuries, and other economic and
non-economic factors too numerous to list.  It will also vary, of
course, on the nature of the injury and the duration and manner of
treatment.  These infinitely variable factors preclude a bright line
rule concerning the standard by which the affordability
determination can be made.  More often than not, juries will have
to decide with the aid of expert and lay testimony when
necessary, whether and to what extent an injured child's medical
necessaries exceed the financial ability of the parents.”
346 Md. at 701, 697 A.2d at 1369.  Likewise, in Greenville Hosp. Sys. v. Smith, 239 S.E.2d
657 (1977), the Supreme Court of South Carolina was faced with a case where a minor’s
parents failed to make any payment on their son’s hospital bill and the record did not indicate
whether this was due to their inability or unwillingness to pay.  The court found that: 
“Mr. and Mrs. Smith have not pursued their right of action to seek
recovery of the expenses they incurred for Kenneth’s medical and
hospital treatment.  Except for their continued failure to pay,
nothing in the record indicates Kenneth’s parents are unable to
pay the hospital bill.  Absent such a showing, respondent must
look to Mr. and Mrs. Smith for payment.”  
Id. at 658-9.  The court therefore remanded to the probate court to determine if Kenneth’s
parents were able to discharge their obligation to pay his hospital expenses.  Id. at 659.  The
court in Smith, like this court in Pepper, was extraordinarily careful in finding a child liable
for his or her parents’ failure to pay for necessary medical costs.  
  
For all the reasons stated herein, I respectfully dissent.  To recap, I find that the
-18-
majority’s reading of this Court’s opinions in Garay and Pepper fails to provide a workable
definition of unwillingness on the part of a parent to pay for necessary medical expenses.  I
also believe that the majority’s analysis is out of step with our statutory and common law
regarding the parental duty to care for children and the meaning of disability.  In the future,
unless a case falls into one of the three categories of cases where courts have found a child’s
parents unwilling to pay for the child’s necessary medical care, I would not hold the child
responsible for the parents’ choices.  
Chief Judge Bell and Judge Eldridge join in this dissenting opinion.