other would not consent to receiving them, if mentally competent; and (d) it was impossible for the other to give consent or, because of extreme youth or mental impairment, the other’s consent would have been immaterial (Emphasis added.) Comment b to section 116 states: Knowledge of dissent. There can be no restitution for services or things rendered to a person who refuses to accept the services and who is of sufficient mental capacity to understand the necessity of receiving them. ... If however, the person is insane, or if he is otherwise not fully mentall 8, 11 (Mo.Ct.App.1993) (affirming on appeal judgment entered in favor of hospital against patient for payment of medical services under quantum meruit theory); Morehead v. Conley, 75 Ohio App.3d 409, 599 N.E.2d 786, 789 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Potter v. McPherson, 198 W.Va. 158, 479
holding that municipality may not be held liable under  1983 upon theory of respondeat superior holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable holding defendant liable under quasicontract theory for reasonable value of services rendered by physician holding city cannot be found liable on either a failuretotrain theory or a municipal custompolicy theory unless a defendant police officer is found liable on an underlying substantive claim holding that a municipality may not be held liable under section 1983 under a theory of respondeat superi or but may be liable for policies or customs that violate an employees constitutional rights