## Facts

- Barbara Slate, a 17-year-old minor, severely injured her foot while playing basketball; it became markedly swollen and discolored, making walking extremely painful.
- Her parents treated the injury as a sprain and declined to obtain medical care.
- Sylvester S. Garfield, an attorney, observed Barbara’s condition and sent her to Dr. Sidney Greenspan for treatment.
- Dr. Greenspan took X-rays, diagnosed a fracture, applied a cast for about one month, and Barbara used crutches; she continued living at home, and her parents knew of the cast and crutches.
- Uncontradicted medical testimony indicated that lack of prompt treatment risked permanent injury, making the situation an emergency.
- Dr. Greenspan billed Barbara’s parents $45 for the treatment, and they refused to pay.
- Garfield filed suit seeking recovery for the physician’s charges (asserted on behalf of Dr. Greenspan or, alternatively, in his own name).

## Issues

1. Whether parents are liable, absent an express or implied-in-fact contract, for the reasonable value of necessary emergency medical services furnished to their minor child when the parents failed to provide such care.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the dismissal entered by the trial court and the affirmance by the Appellate Division.
- The Court held that the parents were liable for the reasonable value of necessary medical services furnished to their minor child in an emergency, even without parental authorization or a contract implied in fact.
- The Court recognized a restitutionary (quasi-contract) right of recovery for the physician’s emergency services.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a legal duty to support their minor children, including obtaining necessary medical care.
- A provider who, with intent to charge, unofficiously furnishes necessary medical services in an emergency to a person unable to consent may obtain restitution from the party who has the legal duty to supply those services.
- Contract formation (express consent or implied-in-fact authorization) is not required where restitution principles apply and the services were reasonably necessary to prevent serious harm or pain.
- Public policy supports allowing recovery to avoid rewarding parental neglect and to ensure compensation for those who supply essential emergency care to minors.

## Conclusion

The court imposed restitutionary liability on parents for the reasonable cost of emergency medical treatment provided to their minor child without parental consent, because the services were necessary, unofficious, and discharged the parents’ legal duty of support.


Greenspan v. Slate, 12 N.J. 426 (1953)