## Facts

- Dr. Eddingfield was a licensed physician in Indiana who held himself out as a general practitioner and had long served as the decedent’s family doctor.
- The decedent became dangerously ill and sent a messenger to summon Dr. Eddingfield.
- The messenger informed the doctor of the illness, tendered the usual fee, and stated that no other physician could be obtained in time and the decedent relied on him.
- The complaint alleged that no other physician was available in time to be of use, and that Dr. Eddingfield had no conflicting urgent duties and could have gone if willing.
- Dr. Eddingfield allegedly refused to render aid without any stated reason.
- The decedent died; the estate claimed the death resulted from the doctor’s refusal to enter into a contract of employment to provide medical services.

## Issues

1. Whether a physician’s licensure, public holding out as a general practitioner, and prior role as a family doctor create a legal duty to accept a request for treatment in an emergency.
2. Whether a physician’s refusal to enter into a doctor–patient relationship can constitute a wrongful act supporting liability for death.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Dr. Eddingfield.
- The court held the complaint did not state a cause of action because the physician had no legal duty to accept the decedent as a patient or to treat on demand.
- The medical licensing statute was construed as authorizing qualified practice and preventing unlicensed practice, not compelling licensed physicians to provide services.
- Analogies to public callings such as common carriers and innkeepers were rejected as inapplicable to physicians.
- Because no duty existed absent contract, statute, or another duty-creating relationship, the demurrer was properly sustained.

## Legal Principles

- A state medical license is permission to practice, not an obligation to practice or to contract with any particular person.
- At common law, absent a special relationship, prior undertaking, or statute, there is generally no affirmative duty to aid or rescue a person in peril.
- A physician’s duty to a patient ordinarily arises from undertaking care (forming a physician–patient relationship) or from a specific legal mandate; it does not arise merely from professional status, availability, reliance, or tender of a fee.
- Refusal to enter into a contract for professional services, without more, does not constitute an actionable tort.

## Conclusion

The court held that a licensed physician who has not undertaken to treat a person owes no legal duty to provide medical care upon request, even in an emergency with no alternative physician available; therefore, refusal to accept the patient could not support liability.


Hurley v. Eddingfield, 156 Ind. 416, 59 N.E. 1058 (Ind. 1901)