Opinion ID: 2391445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: services rendered in an emergency

Text: There can be no doubt that the physician plaintiff comes within the terms of sections 113 and 114 of the Restatement of the Law of Restitution above quoted. The defendants were under an obligation as part of their duty to support and educate their daughter to provide her with medical services both under normal circumstances and in emergencies. The evidence is uncontradicted that an emergency existed. The parents had refused to provide their child with medical attention with the result that permanent injury would have ensued but for the immediate treatment rendered by the physician plaintiff. Clearly they knew that the services were necessary and that a physician would expect payment for his services. Here the defendants permitted their daughter not only to use the cast and crutches for a month, but to return to the doctor at the end of the month to have the cast removed. Having retained the benefit of the physician plaintiff's services and permitted their daughter to return to him for further services, they are in no position in the circumstances of the case to complain that he acted without notice to them. He did not act officiously, and as a physician in practice of his profession he naturally intended to charge for his services. All the necessary elements are present to impose on the defendants the legal obligation to pay for medical expenses rendered to their child in an emergency. The judgment below is reversed. Judgment will be entered here in favor of the plaintiff, Dr. Sidney Greenspan, for $45. For reversal  Chief Justice VANDERBILT, and Justices OLIPHANT, BURLING, JACOBS and BRENNAN  5. For affirmance  Justices HEHER and WACHENFELD  2.