Rosewood Care Center Case Summary

The supreme court of Illinois ruled in favor of Rosewood Care Center, meaning that Caterpillar was held liable to cover the costs of Betty Jo Cooks care at treatment while she was recovering. The appellate court held that a promise to pay the debt of another is subject to the statute of frauds, because the employer promised to pay for the employee's care before the debt came into existence, the employer's promise to pay was not subject to the statute of frauds and that the health care provider's complaint was improperly dismissed by the trial court.
The rule that is being applied in this case are the statute of frauds which requires that certain types of contracts be in a particular form to be enforceable. In this case Caterpillars argument was that the promise to pay the debt was not with in the statute of frauds, but because Caterpillar had agreed to pay the bills before any debt existed it did fall in the statute if frauds and did not have to be in writing.
In this case Rosewood Care Center(plaintiff) filed an action against Caterpillar (defendant) for reimbursement for nursing care services that were provided to Caterpillar’s employee Betty Jo Cook. On …show more content…
Rosewood stated that Caterpillar had promised to pay for Cooks treatment and care that Rosewood had provided. Caterpillar had argued that the promise to pay for Cooks treatment was not enforceable because it was not in writing, which is required by the Frauds Act. The circuit court ruled in favor of Caterpillars, but Rosewood appealed. The appellate court held that a promise to pay the debt of another is subject to the statute of frauds, because the employer promised to pay for the employee's care before the debt came into existence, the employer's promise to pay was not subject to the statute of frauds and that the health care provider's complaint was improperly dismissed by the trial