Key Takeaways
- Expectation damages are the primary measure in contract breaches, aiming to place the injured party in the position they would have occupied if the contract had been performed as promised.
- Explicit promises by professionals, such as physicians, can create enforceable contractual obligations, even absent traditional written agreements.
- Hawkins v. McGee established that a doctor's specific assurances about the outcome of a procedure can constitute a contractual warranty, exposing the doctor to liability if the result falls short of the promise.
Introduction
Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929), is a cornerstone of American contract law. Often referred to as the "Case of the Hairy Hand," this case is frequently cited in law schools and legal commentary for its clear illustration of how courts measure damages in breach of contract cases. The facts are memorable: a doctor’s promise of a “100 percent good hand” led to a surgical mishap that left the patient with a hand covered in hair. The resulting litigation and court opinion have had a profound impact on the development of contract law, especially in the context of medical services and professional warranties.
This guide explores the facts, legal principles, and enduring significance of Hawkins v. McGee, offering insights for attorneys, law students, and anyone interested in the intersection of contract law and medical practice. For primary sources and further reading, consult the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision, the Wikipedia overview, and the FindLaw case summary.
The Facts of the Case
Background
In the early 1920s, George Hawkins suffered a burn injury to his hand, which left significant scarring and impaired function. Seeking improvement, Hawkins consulted Dr. Edward McGee, who proposed a surgical procedure involving the removal of scar tissue and the grafting of skin from Hawkins’s chest onto his hand. Dr. McGee assured Hawkins and his father that the result would be a “100 percent good hand.”
The Surgery and Its Aftermath
The surgery did not go as planned. The skin graft, taken from Hawkins's chest, resulted in the growth of hair on his palm—a highly unusual and undesirable outcome. Not only did the hand remain functionally impaired, but the presence of hair made the result even more disfiguring. Hawkins, dissatisfied and feeling misled by Dr. McGee’s assurances, filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract.
The Lawsuit
At trial, Hawkins argued that Dr. McGee’s explicit promise constituted a contract, and that the failure to deliver a “100 percent good hand” was a breach. Dr. McGee contended that he had only expressed an opinion or hope, not a binding guarantee. The case ultimately made its way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining whether a binding contract existed and, if so, how damages should be measured.
Legal Issues Presented
Was There a Contract?
The first key issue was whether Dr. McGee’s statement amounted to a legally enforceable promise or merely a statement of opinion. The court found that the doctor’s repeated assurances, especially in the presence of Hawkins’s father, were sufficiently definite to create a contractual obligation. This was a significant finding, as it extended contract law principles into the realm of medical practice, where outcomes are often uncertain.
How Should Damages Be Measured?
The second, and most influential, issue was the proper measure of damages. Should Hawkins be compensated for the pain and suffering associated with the surgery, or should damages reflect the difference between what was promised and what was delivered? The court’s resolution of this question would become a foundational principle in contract law.
The Court’s Reasoning and Decision
Expectation Damages Defined
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the appropriate measure of damages in this case was expectation damages—the difference between the value of the hand as promised (“100 percent good hand”) and the value of the hand as it actually was after the surgery (hairy and still impaired). This approach is designed to put the injured party in the position he or she would have occupied if the contract had been fully performed.
The court rejected the idea that Hawkins should receive damages for pain and suffering, reasoning that such discomfort was a necessary part of the contract for surgery and had been contemplated by the parties. In other words, the pain of surgery was not a compensable loss, because it was not a result of the breach but of the contract itself.
Application to the Facts
Applying this principle, the court determined that Hawkins was entitled to the difference in value between a perfectly functioning hand and the actual result. The court remanded the case for a new trial on damages, instructing the jury to apply this expectation measure.
The Legacy of the “Hairy Hand”
The vivid facts of the case—the hairy hand resulting from a chest skin graft—have made Hawkins v. McGee a staple in legal education. More importantly, the case clarified that when a professional makes a specific, affirmative promise about the result of their services, that promise can be enforced as a contractual warranty.
Significance in Contract Law
The Principle of Expectation Damages
Expectation damages are now a fundamental concept in contract law. As articulated in Hawkins v. McGee, the injured party is entitled to be placed in the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed as promised. This principle is not limited to medical cases; it applies broadly to all contracts. The case is frequently cited in legal treatises and textbooks as the leading authority on this measure of damages.
For the authoritative text of the decision, see Hawkins v. McGee on Casetext.
Professional Assurances as Warranties
The case also stands for the proposition that explicit promises made by professionals—such as doctors, lawyers, or contractors—can create enforceable warranties. This is particularly important in fields where outcomes are uncertain and where professionals might otherwise seek to avoid liability by characterizing their statements as opinions or estimates.
The Medical Context
Hawkins v. McGee is especially significant in the context of medical practice. Traditionally, courts have been reluctant to impose contractual liability on physicians for treatment outcomes, recognizing the inherent uncertainty of medical procedures. However, the court in Hawkins found that a clear, specific promise about the result could override these general principles and create a binding contract.
This holding serves as a cautionary tale for medical professionals: making explicit guarantees about results can expose them to contractual liability, above and beyond any claims for negligence or malpractice.
Broader Legal and Practical Implications
Influence on Legal Education
The “Hairy Hand” case is a mainstay in first-year law school curricula. Its memorable facts and clear articulation of damages principles make it an ideal teaching tool. Students learn not only about the measure of damages, but also about the importance of precise language in professional communications and the potential legal consequences of over-promising.
Impact on Medical Practice
For doctors and other professionals, Hawkins v. McGee underscores the importance of managing patient expectations and avoiding absolute guarantees about outcomes. The case has been cited in numerous subsequent decisions involving medical warranties and informed consent, shaping the way professionals communicate with clients and patients.
Contract Law Beyond Medicine
The expectation damages principle articulated in Hawkins v. McGee has been applied in a wide range of contract disputes, from construction contracts to business deals. The case’s influence extends far beyond the medical context, establishing a clear standard for courts to follow when calculating damages for breach of contract.
The Role of Foreseeability and Mitigation
While Hawkins v. McGee focuses on expectation damages, it also touches on related contract principles such as foreseeability and mitigation of damages. The court’s reasoning implies that damages should be limited to those that are foreseeable at the time the contract is made, and that the injured party has a duty to mitigate their losses where possible.
Critiques and Limitations
Limitations of the Expectation Damages Rule
While expectation damages are the default remedy in contract law, they are not always appropriate or sufficient. Critics argue that this approach may sometimes overcompensate plaintiffs, especially in cases where the promised outcome was highly speculative or uncertain. In medical cases, for example, it may be difficult to determine the value of a “perfect” result versus the actual outcome.
The Challenge of Valuing Non-Economic Losses
Hawkins v. McGee sidestepped the issue of pain and suffering by treating it as an expected part of the contract. However, in many cases, non-economic losses such as emotional distress or loss of enjoyment of life may be significant. Courts have struggled with how to value these harms within the expectation damages framework.
The Distinction Between Contract and Tort
The case also highlights the sometimes-blurry line between contract and tort claims. While Hawkins sued for breach of contract, many medical malpractice cases proceed under tort law, which has different standards for liability and damages. The distinction can affect the remedies available and the burden of proof required.
Related Cases and Doctrines
Sullivan v. O’Connor
A closely related case is Sullivan v. O’Connor, 363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183 (1973), in which a patient sued a surgeon for failing to deliver a promised cosmetic result. The court in Sullivan awarded damages for pain and suffering as a result of the breach, distinguishing its approach from Hawkins v. McGee and illustrating the diversity of judicial approaches to damages in medical contract cases.
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts
The Restatement (Second) of Contracts, a leading treatise, cites Hawkins v. McGee as authority for the expectation damages rule. The Restatement’s approach has been adopted by courts across the United States, further cementing the case’s influence.
Modern Applications
Courts continue to cite Hawkins v. McGee in a variety of contexts, from disputes over home renovations to business transactions. The case’s clear articulation of damages principles provides a roadmap for judges and practitioners alike.
For more on the case’s ongoing influence, see the Quimbee case brief.
Practical Lessons for Attorneys and Professionals
Drafting and Communicating Promises
Attorneys advising professionals—especially those in medicine, construction, or other service industries—should counsel their clients to be cautious in making specific promises about outcomes. Where possible, communications should be framed in terms of reasonable expectations or best efforts, rather than guarantees.
Managing Client Expectations
Clear, honest communication with clients and patients is essential. Professionals should document the risks and uncertainties associated with any procedure or service, and ensure that clients understand the limitations of what can be promised.
Litigation and Damages Strategy
For litigators, Hawkins v. McGee provides a blueprint for arguing damages in breach of contract cases. Plaintiffs should focus on the value of the promised result versus the actual result, while defendants may seek to limit damages by challenging the foreseeability or certainty of the promised outcome.
Conclusion
Hawkins v. McGee remains a foundational case in American contract law, illustrating the principle that expectation damages are the standard remedy for breach of contract. The case’s legacy extends far beyond its memorable facts, shaping the way courts, attorneys, and professionals approach promises, warranties, and remedies. By understanding the nuances of Hawkins v. McGee, attorneys can better advise their clients, draft more effective contracts, and advocate more persuasively in court.
For comprehensive legal research and authoritative resources, visit Counsel Stack.
Additional Resources
- Full text of Hawkins v. McGee (Casetext)
- Wikipedia: Hawkins v. McGee
- FindLaw: Hawkins v. McGee Case Summary
- Quimbee: Hawkins v. McGee Case Brief
Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Hawkins v. McGee and related legal principles. It is not legal advice. The case and its application involve nuances and exceptions; consult a qualified attorney or conduct further research for specific legal questions.
