Connection lost
Server error
Hawkins v. McGee Case Brief
LSD Deep Dive ∘ Audio Lesson
Listen and learn on the go - perfect for commutes and maximizing study time
Free Sample Brief: Hawkins v. McGee
You're viewing a complete case brief as a sample of our premium content. This showcases the full IRAC analysis, case summaries, and detailed breakdowns that LSD+ subscribers get for every case.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A surgeon promised a “100% perfect hand” but the operation failed, resulting in a hairy, unusable hand. The court established the proper measure of damages for breach of contract.
Legal Significance: Landmark case establishing the standard measure of expectation damages for breach of contract: the difference between the value of the promised performance and the actual performance received.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff George Hawkins suffered a burn scar on his right hand. Defendant Dr. McGee, a surgeon, approached Hawkins’ father, soliciting the opportunity to perform a skin grafting operation. McGee allegedly stated, “I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand” or “a hundred per cent good hand.” The plaintiff and his father consented based on this promise. The operation involved removing scar tissue and grafting skin from Hawkins’ chest onto his palm. The surgery was unsuccessful; the grafted skin grew thick hair and significantly worsened the hand’s condition and appearance. Hawkins sued McGee for breach of contract, alleging McGee failed to deliver the promised perfect hand. The trial court instructed the jury to award damages for pain and suffering from the operation and any worsening of the hand’s condition beyond its pre-operative state. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, which the trial court reduced.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What is the proper measure of damages for breach of a physician’s specific promise to achieve a particular surgical result?
New trial ordered. The trial court erred by instructing the jury to measure damages based on pain and suffering and the worsening of the hand’s condition; the correct measure is expectation damages.
IRAC Legal Analysis
Legal Issue
What is the proper measure of damages for breach of a physician’s specific promise to achieve a particular surgical result?
Conclusion
Hawkins v. McGee remains a foundational case in contract law, illustrating the application of expectation damages and the distinction between contractual warranties and mere medical opinions.
Legal Rule
The measure of damages for breach of contract is the difference between the value of the contract as fully performed (the value of the promised perfect hand) and the value of the contract in its condition breached (the value of the hand in its post-operative state), plus any incidental damages reasonably foreseeable to the parties at the time of contracting. (3 Williston, Cont., s. 1338; Davis v. Company, 77 N.H. 403).
Legal Analysis
The court first determined that Dr. McGee’s statement, “I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand,” could reasonably be interpreted by a jury as an offer for a special contract (a warranty), rather than mere therapeutic reassurance or opinion, especially given evidence that McGee solicited the operation (Opinion, §1). Under the objective theory of contract formation, McGee’s subjective intent was irrelevant if his words and actions manifested an intent to guarantee the result, which the plaintiff relied upon (Opinion, §3). The court then addressed the measure of damages, rejecting the trial court’s instruction. The proper measure for breach of contract aims to put the plaintiff in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed (expectation interest) (Opinion, §2). This is calculated as the difference between the value of the promised perfect hand and the value of the hand as it resulted from the operation. Pain and suffering incident to the surgery were part of the consideration the plaintiff agreed to endure in exchange for the promised result, not an element of damages for the breach itself. Similarly, while the worsening of the hand factors into its post-operative value, it is not a separate category of damages; the core damage is the failure to deliver the promised value (Opinion, §2). The court analogized to breach of warranty in the sale of goods, applying the standard difference-in-value rule.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A doctor’s explicit guarantee of a specific result (e.g., a “perfect hand”) can form a binding contract, not just an opinion.
- The measure of damages for breach is expectancy: Value(Promised Hand) - Value(Actual Hand).
- Pain and suffering from the surgery itself are not recoverable damages for breach of contract; they are part of the consideration paid.