## Facts

- Dr. Lawrence, a physician, was called to the scene of an automobile accident in which John Anderson was injured.
- Mr. Anderson’s adult daughter, Ms. Anderson, was present.
- Ms. Anderson asked Dr. Lawrence to do whatever was necessary to care for her father and told him, in substance, that she would pay whatever he charged.
- Dr. Lawrence treated Mr. Anderson, including treatment at the hospital to which Mr. Anderson was taken.
- Mr. Anderson later died from his injuries.
- After the treatment, Dr. Lawrence sent bills to Mr. Anderson’s widow and estate rather than billing Ms. Anderson.
- Dr. Lawrence hired an attorney and attempted to collect the charges from the estate and family, but payment was not obtained.
- About a year and a half after the accident and treatment, Dr. Lawrence sued Ms. Anderson based on her oral statement that she would pay.
- At a jury trial, after Dr. Lawrence finished presenting his evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for Ms. Anderson.
- Dr. Lawrence appealed the directed verdict to the Supreme Court of Vermont.

## Issues

1. Whether Ms. Anderson’s oral statement that she would pay for medical services rendered to her father was an original promise making her primarily liable (and therefore enforceable without a writing), or a collateral promise to answer for her father’s debt (and therefore barred by the Statute of Frauds without a writing).
2. Whether Dr. Lawrence’s evidence—especially his decision to bill and pursue collection from Mr. Anderson’s estate—left any jury question that credit was extended to Ms. Anderson rather than to Mr. Anderson (and later his estate).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed the directed verdict for Ms. Anderson.
- The court concluded that, on this record, the plaintiff’s own conduct showed the debt was treated as Mr. Anderson’s (and his estate’s) obligation, so the daughter’s oral statement operated at most as a promise to pay the debt of another.
- Because the promise, as shown by the evidence, fell within the Statute of Frauds and there was no writing, Dr. Lawrence could not recover from Ms. Anderson.

## Legal Principles

- A person who merely calls a physician to render services to another is not liable for the physician’s fees absent an express agreement, a legal duty to provide the care, or circumstances showing both parties intended that the caller would be the payor.
- An oral promise can be enforceable without a writing if it is an original undertaking—i.e., the promisor becomes the primary obligor and the physician extends credit to the promisor rather than to the patient.
- An oral promise is within the Statute of Frauds if it is a “special promise to answer for the debt of another,” meaning a collateral commitment to pay if the primary debtor does not.
- The physician’s post-service conduct (such as charging the patient or the patient’s estate, sending bills there, and pursuing collection there) is strong evidence that the physician treated the patient/estate as the party primarily liable.
- Although charging the patient/estate is not always conclusive, rebutting the inference requires strong proof; where the physician gives no explanation for billing the patient/estate, the court may treat that conduct as showing the physician regarded the patient/estate as the debtor.
- When the plaintiff’s own evidence shows the debt was placed on the patient/estate and the promise is therefore collateral, the court may take the case from the jury and direct a verdict for the defendant under the Statute of Frauds.

## Conclusion

Because Dr. Lawrence billed and pursued payment from John Anderson’s estate and widow for an extended period, the court treated that conduct as showing Dr. Lawrence extended credit to Mr. Anderson (and, after death, his estate), not to Ms. Anderson; accordingly, her oral assurance was only a collateral promise to pay another’s debt and was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds without a writing, so the directed verdict for Ms. Anderson was affirmed.


Lawrence v. Anderson, 184 A. 689 (1936)