Does a surgeon's statement guaranteeing a 'hundred per cent perfect hand' create a contractual warranty enforceable in damages?

The plaintiff underwent surgery to remove scar tissue from his right hand caused by an electric wire burn nine years earlier. The defendant surgeon grafted skin from the plaintiff's chest to replace the scar tissue. Before the operation, the defendant told the plaintiff and his father that the boy would be in the hospital for three or four days and would be able to return to work with a perfect hand. The defendant also allegedly stated 'I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand' or 'a hundred per cent good hand.' Evidence suggested the defendant repeatedly solicited the opportunity to perform this operation and sought to experiment with skin grafting, having little previous experience in the procedure. The plaintiff and his father relied on the defendant's guarantee in consenting to the surgery. The operation did not produce the promised perfect hand, and the defendant refused to perform a corrective operation.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant surgeon for breach of contract based on the alleged warranty. The case proceeded to trial where a jury verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court set aside part of the verdict, finding damages above $500 to be excessive. The defendant appealed the decision.

(Branch, J.)

Yes. A surgeon's explicit guarantee to produce a 'hundred per cent perfect hand' can constitute an enforceable contractual warranty when made with the intention to induce consent and reasonably relied upon by the patient. While statements about treatment duration and recovery time constitute mere expressions of opinion or predictions that impose no contractual liability when exceeded, an unqualified guarantee of a specific result differs fundamentally in character. The preliminary question of whether the words could possibly bear the meaning attributed to them by the plaintiff presents a question of law for the trial court. The defendant's argument that no reasonable person would understand such words as creating contractual obligations fails when countervailing evidence supports the plaintiff's interpretation. The evidence that the defendant repeatedly solicited the opportunity to perform this experimental procedure, combined with his limited experience in skin grafting, provides a reasonable basis for concluding that any guarantee was intended to induce consent and was reasonably understood as such by the plaintiff and his father. The proper measure of damages in warranty cases follows established contract principles: compensation should place the plaintiff in the position he would have occupied had the contract been performed. This requires calculating the difference between the value of the promised perfect hand and the actual value of the hand in its current condition, including reasonably foreseeable incidental consequences. Pain and suffering from the operation itself cannot constitute damages because such discomfort represents part of the consideration the plaintiff willingly provided for the promised result. Similarly, any worsening of the hand's condition is encompassed within the proper damage calculation rather than constituting a separate element.