Murtaugh v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 31 October 1869
• Citation: 44 Mo. 479
• Parties: JAMES MURTAUGH, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

44 Mo. 479

JAMES MURTAUGH, Respondent,

v.THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1869.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Reber, city counselor, for appellant.

A municipal corporation is not civilly liable for the nonfeasance, or malfeasance, or misfeasance, of its officers and servants while engaged in the discharge of the public political duties of the corporation. (City of Richmond v. Long's Adm'r, 17 Grat. 375; Dargan v. Mobile, 31 Ala. 469; Stewart v. New Orleans, 9 La. An. 461; Bailey v. New York, 3 Hill, 538; Martin v. Mayor of Brooklyn, 1 Hill, 550; Prather v. City of Lexington, 13 B. Monr. 559; Western College v. Cleveland, 12 Ohio St. 375.) For analogous cases see Reardon v. St. Louis County, 30 Mo. 555; Sherburne v. Yuba County, 21 Cal. 113. This case is exactly like the one at bar, except the suit was against a county instead of a city.O'Neil & Quigley, for respondent.

The City Hospital is established by the city of St. Louis for the benefit of the indigent sick of the city, and the city is liable for the gross negligence and want of skill on the part of her employees or agents, although the victim happens to be a charity or non-paying patient.

CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff was a non-paying patient in the St. Louis City Hospital. While there he suffered physical injuries, which he alleges were caused by the negligence and misconduct of the hospital officials and servants. This suit is brought against the city to recover damages for the alleged injuries. At the trial in the Circuit Court, the verdict and judgment were for the plaintiff. The defendant moved in arrest. This brings up the question whether the city is liable for the negligence and misfeasance of the hospital authorities and servants in the administration of this particular charity. No provision of the city charter or of any ordinance is cited in support of the action; nor is any authority or any specific legal principle invoked in its aid. The action is conceded to be of new impression, and is without precedent in this State. There have been, however, various adjudications upon the general question of the liability of municipal corporations for the acts and omissions of their officers and servants. The general result of these adjudications seems to be this: where the officer or servant of a municipal corporation is in the exercise of a power conferred upon the corporation for its private benefit, and injury ensues from the negligence or misfeasance of such officer or servant, the corporation is liable, as in the case of private corporations or parties; but when the acts or omissions complained of were done or omitted in the exercise of a corporate franchise conferred upon the corporation for the public good, and not for private corporate advantage, then the corporation is not liable for the consequences of such acts or omissions on the part of its officers and servants. (Bailey v. New York City, 3 Hill, 531; Martin v. Brooklyn, 1 Hill, 550; City of Richmond v. Long's Adm'r, 17 Grat., Va., 375; Sherburne v. Yuba County, 21 Cal. 113; Dargan v. Mobile, 31 Ala. 469; Stewart v. New Orleans, 9 La. An. 461; Prather v. City of Lexington, 13 B. Monr. 559.)

In Bailey v. New York, 3 Hill. 539, Nelson, C. J., in delivering the opinion of the court, says: “The distinction is quite clear and well settled, and the process of separation practicable. To this end, regard should be had not so much to the nature and...