Held: The doctrine of necessaries states that a minor may be held liable for the cost of necessaries, including medical necessaries, when his or her parents are either unable or unwilling to pay. On this record, the father’s refusal to apply the insurance pro- ceeds to satisfy the debt owed Respondent-the existence of which he was well aware of as it was the facial premise for which he and Petitioner applied to Erie in the first place-was a clear indication of his unwillingness at the time to pay for Petitioner’s medical expenses. Because a minor can be held to a contract for neces- saries under certain circumstances, under the facts of this case, Petitioner, while a minor child, did possess the legal capacity to promise or contract impliedly for pay- ment of her medically-necessitated hospital bill. The Court recognized in prior cases that public policy and justice demand that an injured minor have the right to recover incurred medical expenses from a third- party tortfeasor, where the child’s parents are unable of unwilling to pay for those expenses, because the medical provider may sue to recover them, either during the child’s minority or within the statute of limitations after the child has reached the age of ma- jority. By parity of reasoning in the present case, the Court held that such a child, upon attaining adulthood, may be liable in con- tract to pay for medical necessaries provided to him or her while a minor, if the parents were unable or unwilling to pay for such necessaries. The Court held the Circuit Court properly affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
Schmidt v. Prince George’s Hospital, No. 119, September Term, 2000, filed 15 November 2001. Opinion by Harrell, J.
Torts
Negligence: YMCA not acting in loco parentis for a fifteen-year-old boy attend- ing an evening skating event that attracted hundreds of guests, YMCA not liable for stabbing death of the boy in its parking lot.
Facts: On April 3, 1998, between 6 and 9 p.m., the Dorchester Family YMCA (“YMCA”) held a Friday night roller skat- ing event billed as “Skate with the Easter Bunny Healthy Kids Night.” A YMCA director, a skate monitor, and a group of volunteers supervised the skating. Approxi- mately three hundred people were in attendance. Around 8 p.m., a teenager told the skate monitor that someone was going to be beaten up. The skate monitor told the teen- ager to stay inside the gymnasium where there was supervision and then informed the program director of the rumor. The program director had a staff member call the police and ask the police to come by around 8:50 p.m. to respond and provide additional adult supervision when the event ended. About 8:50 p.m., fifteen-year-old Leo
Molock, Jr. (“Molock”), got into a fight, in the YMCA parking lot, with fourteen-year- old Leroy McKnight (“McKnight”). After exchanging several blows, McKnight walked away, took a pocketknife from his cousin, and returned to stab Molock. Molock died from his stab wounds. Molock’s parents filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court for Dorchester County against the YMCA, alleging negligence. At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial
judge instructed the jury that Molock was an invitee, and the duty owed. Counsel for the plaintiffs excepted to the instructions, specifically that he wanted an in loco parentis instruction stating that the YMCA is under a special duty to exercise reasonable care to protect from harm its members who are children. The trial judge declined to give the requested instruction, and jury determined that the YMCA was not negligent. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the in loco parentis instruction.
Held: Judgment affirmed. The Court held that the YMCA did not stand in loco parentis with Molock and that the trial judge did not err in rejecting the instruction proposed by appellants. Appellants presented no evidence from which the jury could have legitimately con- cluded that the YMCA intended to take over the parents’ rights and duties while the children were on its premises, nor did ap- pellants present any evidence to show that the YMCA ever took custody of Molock. At all times, Molock was free to leave or stay at the YMCA. While appellants proved that the YMCA was monitoring the chil- dren at the center, that, alone, did not create a special relationship or a heightened duty of care.
get published. . .
Do you have an idea for an article that you would like to see published in MTLA’s Trial Reporter? Would you like to see one of your briefs converted into an article?
YOU CAN!
Contact Robert Lembo at 410-539-4336
Summer 2002 Trial Reporter 63
The Court rejected appellants’ conten- tion that their son’s relationship with the YMCA was analogous to a student’s rela- tionship with his or her school, stating: “Unlike the situation with children who must attend school, parents who send their children to YMCA events know that their children can leave the event at any time without sanction and without the YMCA having any right to stop them.” The Court further noted that even if the YMCA stood in loco parentis to its mem- bers who were children, the trial judge would not have erred in rejecting the ap- pellants’ proposed instruction because it concerned only the duty owed to members who were children. Appellants did not prove that they or their son were YMCA members; they proved only that their son attended an event sponsored by the YMCA. Thus, the instruction, itself, was not sup- ported by the evidence.
Leo G. Molock, Sr., et al. v. Dorchester County Family YMCA, Inc., No. 2539, September Term 1999, filed August 30, 2001. Opinion by Salmon, J.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68