Cengage Advantage Books: Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business 3rd Edition by Marianne Jennings

Exercise 12

Yale Diagnostic Radiology v. Estate of Fountain 838 A.2d 179 (Conn. 2003)
Shooting for Payment from a Minor
Facts
In March 1996, Harun Fountain was shot in the back of the head at point-blank range by a playmate. As a result of his injuries, including the loss of his right eye, Fountain had extensive lifesaving medical services from many providers, including Yale Diagnostic Radiology (Yale/plaintiff). The expenses at Yale totaled $17,694. Yale billed Vernetta Turner-Tucker (Tucker), Fountain's mother, but the bill went unpaid and, in 1999, Yale obtained a judgment against her. In January 2001, all of Tucker's debts were discharged in bankruptcy, including the Yale judgment. None of the cases, from bankruptcy to the present litigation, discussed Fountain's father.
Tucker filed suit against the boy who had shot her son. However, Fountain passed away before the case was settled. The settlement from this tort case was placed into probate court as part of Fountain's estate. Tucker was the administrator of her son's estate. When the settlement was deposited, Yale asked the probate court for payment of its $17,694 judgment from the estate. The Probate Court denied the motion, reasoning that parents are liable for medical services rendered to their minor children, and that a parent's refusal or inability to pay for those services does not render the minor child liable. Yale was denied payment from the estate and appealed to the trial court, which held for Yale. Tucker and the estate (defendants) appealed.
Judicial Opinion
BORDEN, Justice
The rule that a minor's contracts are voidable is not absolute. An exception to this rule, eponymously known as the doctrine of necessaries, is that a minor may not avoid a contract for goods or services necessary for his health and sustenance. Such contracts are binding even if entered into during minority, and a minor, upon reaching majority, may not, as a matter of law, disaffirm them.
… [W]e conclude that Connecticut recognizes the doctrine of necessaries. We further conclude that, pursuant to the doctrine, the defendants are liable for payment to the plaintiff for the services rendered to Fountain.
Our common law has long recognized the parents' obligation to provide for their minor child ("[t]here is a law of our universal humanity … which impels parents, whether fathers or mothers, to protect and support their helpless children")
The present case illustrates the inequity that would arise if no implied in law contract arose between Fountain and the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff undoubtedly presumed that Fountain's parent would pay for his care and was obligated to make reasonable efforts to collect from Tucker before seeking payment from Fountain, the direct benefit of the services, nonetheless, was conferred upon Fountain. Having received the benefit of necessary services, Fountain should be liable for payment for those necessaries in the event that his parents do not pay.
Fountain received, through a settlement with the boy who caused his injuries, funds that were calculated, at least in part, on the costs of the medical services provided to him by the plaintiff in the wake of those injuries. This fact further supports a determination of an implied-inlaw contract under the circumstances of the case. The judgment is affirmed.
Case Questions
1. Describe the series of events that led to Yale requesting that the minor pay for the medical services.
2. What public policy issues and concerns result from this decision?
3. What benefits does the decision provide?