![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
The common law doctrine of necessaries is no longer viable.
Respondent hospital sued petitioner wife and her husband for payment of medical services respondent rendered to petitioner's husband. The trial court dismissed respondent's complaint against petitioner on the ground that petitioner had not executed an agreement to pay for the services rendered to her husband. In its ruling, the trial court declined to expand the doctrine of necessaries to hold petitioner responsible for her husband's medical bills. The court of appeal reversed and remanded. Petitioner then sought review, indicating there was a direct conflict of decisions on the applicability of the doctrine.
Could the petitioner be held liable for her husband’s care on the basis of the doctrine of necessities?
The court quashed the decision by the court of appeals in respondent's favor because the doctrine of necessities was no longer viable, and thus petitioner was not liable for her husband's care.