172 Misc. 787, Steinert v. Brunswick Home

• Citation: 172 Misc. 787, 16 N.Y.S.2d 83
• Party Name: HENRY M. STEINERT, as Executor, etc., of CORNELIUS MURPHY, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. THE BRUNSWICK HOME, INC., and MORRIS ROBERT KEEN, Defendants.
• Case Date: November 03, 1939

Page 787

172 Misc. 787

16 N.Y.S.2d 83

HENRY M. STEINERT, as Executor, etc., of CORNELIUS MURPHY, Deceased, Plaintiff,

v.

THE BRUNSWICK HOME, INC., and MORRIS ROBERT KEEN, Defendants.

Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County.

November 3, 1939

Page 788

COUNSEL

Salter & Steinkamp [Winfred C. Allen of counsel], for the plaintiff.

Donald A. Gray [F. J. O'Kane of counsel], for the defendant The Brunswick Home, Inc.

Lorenz J. Brosnan, for the defendant Morris Robert Keen.

STEINBRINK, J.

In the trial of this action before the court and a jury the following facts were disclosed: The decedent, Cornelius J. Murphy, consulted a physician of his own choosing, the defendant Keen, who advised a cystoscopy and recommended hospitalization at the defendant hospital, a private, non-charitable institution. The decedent entered the hospital on July 2, 1937, and soon thereafter was prepared for the operation. A nurse in the hospital's employ was in charge of the operating room. When Dr. Keen was ready to perform the cystoscopy he asked the nurse for a five per cent solution of cocaine, informing her that there was a ten per cent solution in the cabinet. A cocaine solution is colorless and odorless. The nurse poured out two drams, to which she added an equal amount of distilled water. Dr. Keen drew the solution into a syringe and injected it into the decedent's urethra preliminary to passing a catheter. Upon detecting an unlooked-for reaction, Dr. Keen asked the nurse to show him the bottle from which the solution had been prepared and then noticed that it contained sodium hydroxide, likewise a colorless and odorless liquid. He immediately did all that he could for the patient, but as a result of the injection of the sodium hydroxide solution the decedent suffered severe burns, which developed into strictures. The decedent died some fifteen months later from other causes and the executor of his estate sued to recover for the pain and suffering of the decedent and for medical expenses incurred in treatment of the injuries sustained.

The general competency of the nurse was not questioned. There was no suggestion that the hospital was negligent either in hiring or retaining her in its employ.

The jury brought in a verdict for the defendant Keen and against the defendant hospital in the sum of $10,000. Prior to submission of the case to the jury, the defendant hospital moved to dismiss

Page 789

the complaint as against it. Decision on the motion was reserved. Upon the coming in of the verdict, defendant hospital renewed its motion to dismiss the complaint and moved further to set the verdict aside. Both motions proceeded on the claim that the hospital, even though privately maintained, is not responsible for the negligence of its nurse in the treatment of patients.

A hospital, whether charitable or private, is immune from liability by reason of the negligence of its doctors or nurses with respect to...