Court Opinion

ID: 9727844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:51:05.517305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:43.515667
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I dissent from that portion of the opinion which holds that evidence of reasonable value of the services rendered plaintiff by the Shriners’ Hospital for Crippled Children is inadmissible. I agree with the well-reasoned holding of the appellate court that the evidence was admissible and the reasonable value of the services recoverable. The infirmity of the majority’s position is demonstrated by the fact that application of its rationale to an action involving a claim for the destruction of an automobile which the owner had received as a gift would result in the holding that because it had cost him nothing there could be no recovery for its destruction. I am certain that the contributors who made it possible for the Shriners’ Hospital, without compensation, to render the type of medical services which plaintiff received, intended that the plaintiff, and not the tortfeasor, be the beneficiary of their largess. MR. JUSTICE MORAN joins in this partial concurrence and partial dissent.