Hawkins v. McGee is a landmark decision in United States contract law and is widely cited for its explanation of how damages for breach of contract should be measured. The case is commonly referred to as the “Hairy Hand” case because of the unusual medical outcome that followed a surgical procedure. Over time, the case has become a foundational teaching tool in contract law courses, particularly for understanding expectation damages.
The importance of Hawkins v. McGee lies not in medical negligence but in the court’s analysis of whether a doctor’s promise amounted to a binding contract and how damages should be calculated when such a promise is breached.
Background of Hawkins v. McGee
George A. Hawkins suffered an electrical burn to his right hand in 1915 when he was eleven years old. The injury occurred after he came into contact with an electrical wire while turning on a light in his family’s kitchen. As a result of this incident, Hawkins’ hand was left scarred.
Several years later, Edward R. B. McGee, a physician practicing in Berlin, New Hampshire, approached Hawkins’ father, Charles Hawkins. McGee suggested a surgical procedure to remove the scars from George Hawkins’ hand. During these discussions, McGee stated that he would guarantee a “one hundred percent good hand.” This statement later became central to the dispute in Hawkins v. McGee.
McGee proposed using a skin grafting technique that involved removing skin from Hawkins’ chest and grafting it onto the injured hand. It was later established that McGee had little experience with this technique. Despite the assurance of a perfect or fully good hand, the procedure did not produce the promised result.
Facts of Hawkins v. McGee
In Hawkins v. McGee, the defendant doctor removed a substantial amount of scar tissue from the plaintiff’s hand and replaced it with skin taken from the plaintiff’s chest. The skin graft failed to achieve the intended outcome. Not only were the scars not properly corrected, but the graft caused thick hair to grow on the palm of Hawkins’ hand.
Before the operation, McGee also made statements about the expected recovery period. He indicated that Hawkins would remain in the hospital for three or four days and would be able to return to work shortly thereafter. However, the focus of the lawsuit was not on the length of hospitalization but on the guarantee of a “one hundred percent good hand.”
Hawkins brought a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and negligence. The negligence claim was dismissed early in the proceedings. The trial court allowed recovery for pain and suffering and for injury beyond what Hawkins had suffered before the operation.
Procedural History
The trial court instructed the jury that if Hawkins was entitled to recover damages, he could recover compensation for pain and suffering and for additional injury caused by the operation. The jury awarded damages based on this instruction.
McGee appealed the decision. On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed whether a valid contract had been formed and whether the damages awarded by the lower court were calculated correctly under contract law principles. This appellate decision forms the core holding of Hawkins v. McGee.
Issues
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire addressed two central issues in Hawkins v. McGee:
- Whether the doctor’s statement guaranteeing a “one hundred percent good hand” constituted a legally enforceable promise that formed a contract.
- What the proper measure of damages should be when such a contract is breached.
Hawkins v. McGee Judgment
The court held that the doctor’s statements regarding hospital stay and recovery time were merely opinions or predictions and did not create contractual obligations. However, the statement guaranteeing a “one hundred percent good hand” could be understood as a contractual warranty.
The court further held that the correct measure of damages was not pain and suffering, but the difference between the value of the promised result and the value of the result actually received.
Reasoning on Contract Formation
In Hawkins v. McGee, the court carefully distinguished between statements that are opinions and statements that can form binding promises. The doctor’s estimates about recovery time were viewed as predictions rather than enforceable commitments. If these estimates proved inaccurate, they did not create contractual liability.
In contrast, the statement guaranteeing a perfect or fully good hand was treated differently. The court emphasized that the jury was entitled to consider whether this statement was intended to be taken at face value and relied upon as an inducement for consent to surgery. Evidence showed that McGee repeatedly encouraged Hawkins’ father to agree to the operation, despite having little experience with the procedure.
The court concluded that if the jury believed McGee made the guarantee with the intent that it be accepted as a promise, and if Hawkins and his father accepted it on that basis, then a valid contract existed.
Reasoning on Damages
The most significant contribution of Hawkins v. McGee lies in its explanation of contract damages. The court stated that damages in contract law are intended to compensate for the breach by placing the injured party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed as promised.
The court rejected the trial court’s instruction allowing recovery for pain and suffering. It reasoned that pain and suffering were inherent in the surgical procedure and were part of the price Hawkins agreed to pay in exchange for the promised outcome. Because Hawkins consented to the surgery knowing it would involve pain, such suffering could not be treated as a separate contractual loss.
Instead, the proper measure of damages was described as the difference between the value of a “one hundred percent good hand” and the value of Hawkins’ hand in its actual post-operation condition. The court also allowed for recovery of incidental losses that were within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was formed.
This approach reflects what is commonly referred to as expectation damages, which aim to protect the injured party’s expectation interest.
Conclusion
Hawkins v. McGee remains a foundational case for understanding contract formation and damages in United States law. By separating enforceable promises from mere opinions and by clearly defining the purpose of contract damages, the case provides lasting guidance on how courts analyze breached agreements.
Its emphasis on expectation damages continues to shape the way contract remedies are taught and applied, making Hawkins v. McGee a cornerstone of modern contract law.