Armendarez v. Hotel Dieu

• Decision Date: 20 March 1912
• Citation: 145 S.W. 1030
• Parties: ARMENDAREZ v. HOTEL DIEU.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 1030

145 S.W. 1030

ARMENDAREZ v. HOTEL DIEU.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

March 20, 1912.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; A. M. Walthall, Judge.

Action by Ramona Armendarez against the Hotel Dieu. From a judgment on a directed verdict for the defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Ralf Border, of El Paso, for appellant. T. A. Falvey and P. H. Clarke, both of El Paso, for appellee.

JAMES, C. J.

This petition of Ramona Armendarez against appellee, a private corporation existing under the laws of Texas operating a hospital in the city of El Paso, set forth allegations which ordinarily would, without question, state a valid cause of action against the master for damages for personal injury received by an employé. The court, after hearing the testimony, directed the jury to find for the defendant.

Examination of the testimony satisfies us that the peremptory instruction was not given upon the theory of lack of testimony of the employer's negligence and of such negligence being the cause of injury to plaintiff's hand. The testimony was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, in that respect. It is evident from the briefs that the charge and verdict have their sole support in the view that the defendant corporation was, from the nature of its purposes and business, exempt from liability for the matter asserted in the petition.

Defendant's charter was filed with the Secretary of State in July, 1892, for the following named purposes: "The erection and maintenance of a hospital in El Paso, Texas, at which the members of the corporation will administer to the sick and afflicted of all nations, and to enable its members to receive the sick, the helpless and the afflicted and to nurse and care for them and to alleviate their pain and suffering, and to restore them as far as possible to health." The corporation was "to have power to purchase in its corporate name all property necessary for the erection and proper maintenance of the hospital and to make and enforce all necessary by-laws, rules and regulations for its proper treatment." The signers and officers named in the charter were Sisters of Charity (whose central house was then at Emmetsburg, Md.), and it was provided that only Sisters of Charity of the same society could be members, and removal by death or by Superiors at Emmetsburg should be sufficient. There was no capital stock. It was shown that these institutions of this order are all over the United States, and all one and the same; that the head institution at Emmetsburg has been divided into the Eastern and Western, and the defendant now reports to the institution at St. Louis, which institution sends persons down at times to investigate the affairs of defendant.

Sister Mary Joseph testified, among other things: That the business of the Sisters is to take care of the sick and get no pay at all, and do not expect any. The money that comes in from the hospital does not go to the Sisters. "It goes to the expenses of the house. * * * I do not know what becomes of the money if there is any surplus. * * * The rooms on the first floor run from $15 to $35 a week. * * * The prices on the next floor are the same as on the first floor. That is true all over the house, except the wards, which are $12 for private patients and $10 for railroad patients. By `ward' I mean a room in which there is more than one bed. * * * The railroads send us their patients. They pay us $10 a week for their patients. * * * There are no $12 rooms upstairs. You cannot get a room for less than $12 upstairs. * * * They do not take charity patients on the second or third floors. * * * When patients are brought into the hospital, we do not know whether they are paid patients or charity patients. We just take them in. A charity patient would get whatever room was needed for his benefit just the same as a paid patient would. They get the same accommodations. A patient going in there, not being able to pay, would get the same care that a paid patient would. I know if a person goes in there too poor to pay, he would be taken care of just the same way as a paid patient. I know that because it is one of our rules. A person that has money we charge them. We would rather have poor patients than patients who are able to pay. * * * They put the...