Memorial Hospital v. Hahaj
Citation | 430 N.E.2d 412 |
Decision Date | 28 January 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 3-581A141,3-581A141 |
Parties | MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Diana Leslie HAHAJ, Appellee-Defendant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Susan M. Yoder, Krisor & Associates, South Bend, for appellant-plaintiff.
Memorial Hospital brought this action against Diana Leslie Hahaj to recover $52.50 for medical services rendered. After the trial court heard the evidence regarding Memorial Hospital's claim for medical services rendered, it made the following finding:
"After hearing the Court (sic ) now finds: that the account sued upon is for medical services rendered to the defendant, there known as Diana Leslie; that such services were necessary and the charged (sic ) reasonable; that at the time the defendant was legally married to one Floyd Leslie and was residing and cohabiting with him; that as a matter of law the defendant, as a married woman was not legally liable in her individual capacity for such services."
The judgment rendered for Diana Leslie and against Memorial Hospital is brought to this Court on appeal for a review of the finding of the trial court. After a review of the above finding, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The anachronistic issue raised by this appeal is analogous to the current status of the black bear in Indiana. Although once a viable and life-influencing force in our society, it is today merely of historical interest, existing only in museums, works of history, and active imaginations. The issue raised is whether a married woman is liable for the medical expenses she incurs in her own behalf.
This appeal arises out of those by-gone days of yesteryear when men were men and women were non sui juris. 1 In Henneger v. Lomas (1896), 145 Ind. 287, 44 N.E. 462, the Indiana Supreme Court explained the status of married women in the "good old days."
Id. at 288-90, 44 N.E. at 463.
But today's married woman is a different legal creature. Indiana is starting its second century since the Married Woman's Act was first adopted in 1879. 2 That Act was substantially re-enacted in 1923, 3 and by the end of the Roaring Twenties the married woman's nonliability for contractual obligations-like flappers, bath tub gin, and "23-skidoo"-was set by the wayside of time's progressive road. 4
The above cited Married Woman's Act is substantially intact and may be found under Marriage: Rights and Liabilities Incident to Marriage Relation, Ind.Code §§ 31-1-9-1 to -14 (1976 & Supp.1981). In pertinent part these statutes provide:
"All the legal disabilities of married women to make contracts are hereby abolished, except as herein otherwise provided."
Id. at -1.
Id. at -2.
Id. at -4.
Indiana's married woman may now freely contract, own, sell, mortgage and convey real or personal property. She may also commit torts and breach contracts and be held individually liable. There are still shackles to the married woman's status as represented by some legal throwbacks to those by-gone days.
Even after such acts as the Married Woman's Act were adopted by most jurisdictions, the common law rule that a husband is liable for his wife's "necessaries," including her medical expenses, has continued. See, e. g., Mount v. Baptist of Gadsen, Inc. (1966), 43 Ala.App. 423, 191 So.2d 262 ( ); Memorial Hospital of Alamance County v. Brown (1981), 50 N.C.App. 526, 274 S.E.2d 277 ( ); Matter of Estate Stromsted v. St. Michael Hospital of Franciscan Sisters (1980), 99 Wis.2d 136, 299 N.W.2d 226 ( ).
Appellant and the trial court agree the above stated common law is the general rule in Indiana, citing Hickey v. Shoemaker (1960), 132 Ind.App. 136, 167 N.E.2d 487, and City of Terre Haute v. Pigg (1940), 108 Ind.App. 68, 27 N.E.2d 137. Representatively, the Court in Pigg (male chauvinist?) stated:
"Of course, the appellant is correct in its contention that a husband is primarily legally bound to pay the doctor and medical bills for the treatment of his wife...."
108 Ind.App. at 73, 27 N.E.2d at 137. Although the above cited cases addressed the admissibility of evidence regarding medical bills of the wife, rather than the primary liability for those bills, the above quoted statement can not be said to be an inaccurate statement of the existing common law in Indiana. 5
Many jurisdictions today recognize the modern marital relationship as a financial partnership. Under such partnership, the individual is liable for his or her medical expenses with the other partner (spouse) and the marital property secondarily liable. Some states have adopted this position by statute, see, e.g., Connecticut General Statutes, § 46b-37 (1981); Iowa Code Annotated § 597.14 (1950), while others by judicial decree. 6 See, e.g., Jersey Shore Medical Center-Fitkin Hospital v. Estate of Baum (1980), 84 N.J. 137, 417 A.2d 1003; Pearson v. Cobey (1975), 84 Misc.2d 479, 376 N.Y.S.2d 406.
Our own Supreme Court has recognized the changing role of the married woman and the marital relationship. In Troue v. Marker (1969), 253 Ind. 284, 252 N.E.2d 800, after citing Blackstone's Commentaries on the common law and the status of married women thereunder, the Court stated:
"The common law must keep pace with changes in our society, and in our opinion the change in the legal and social status of women in our society forces us to recognize a change in the doctrine with which we are concerned in this opinion." (citations omitted)
Id. at 290, 252 N.E.2d at 804.
In Troue, the Court found the common law adaptable to the changing role of the married woman and the marital relationship. The Court therefore held that a wife could recover for loss of consortium of her husband, a right theretofore denied the married woman. And again, recognizing the changing role of the married woman and the marital relationship, the Court found the common law adaptable and abrogated interspousal immunity in Brooks v. Robinson (1972), 259 Ind. 16, 284...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Medical Business Associates, Inc. v. Steiner
...The necessaries doctrine has also been extended to impose liability on both spouses in the States of Indiana (see, Memorial Hosp. v. Hahaj, 430 N.E.2d 412 [Ind.App.]), South Carolina (see, Richland Memorial Hosp. v. Burton, 282 S.C. 159, 318 S.E.2d 12), Michigan (see, Borgess Medical Center......
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boles, Civ. A. No. IP83-834-C.
...basis for reinstating charge of burglary brought against a spouse for allegedly stealing from other spouse); Memorial Hospital v. Hahaj, 430 N.E.2d 412, 416 (Ind.App., 3d Dist.1982) (Brooks cited as support for the setting down of the rule that spouse incurring the medical expenses is prima......
- Indiana Const. Corp. v. Chicago Tribune Co.
-
Bartrom v. Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
...the marital partnership and, incidentally, for creditors who provide necessaries for either spouse." Id. at 1010. In Memorial Hosp. v. Hahaj (1982), Ind.App., 430 N.E.2d 412, the Indiana Court of Appeals adopted the New Jersey approach in toto. It accepted the Jersey Shore formulation that ......