Beam v. University Hosp. Bldg., Inc., BE-119

• Decision Date: 10 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. BE-119,BE-119
• Citation: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 864,486 So.2d 672
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 864 Dennie G. BEAM and Martharay Beam, Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BUILDING, INC., d/b/a Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 672

486 So.2d 672

11 Fla. L. Weekly 864

Dennie G. BEAM and Martharay Beam, Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL BUILDING, INC., d/b/a Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville, Appellee.

No. BE-119.

District Court of Appeal of Florida First District.

April 10, 1986.

V. James Facciolo, of Searcy, Facciolo & Ossi, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellants.

Michael J. Davie and Michael C. Pendley, of Bullock, Childs & Mickler, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellee.

SMITH, Judge.

Appellants appeal the trial court's dismissal of their amended complaint, contending that the complaint makes out a cause of action against appellee University Hospital Building, Inc. (Hospital) under either a negligence or an implied contract theory. Appellants also contend that, assuming the complaint established a cause of action in negligence, the trial court's order of dismissal erroneously found by implication that the statute of limitations had run on their negligence claim. We affirm.

Appellant Dennie G. Beam suffered certain injuries on November 29, 1977. As a result, he was unconscious when brought to the emergency room of the appellee hospital. According to appellants' amended complaint, a group of physicians who had staff privileges at the hospital chose another staff physician, Harry L. Collins, Jr., to perform necessary orthopedic procedures on Mr. Beam. The complaint further asserted that the hospital, although it possessed the authority to do so, did not require Collins to "have some means of financial security in order to respond in the event of an act of medical malpractice."

As a result of Dr. Collins' treatment of Mr. Beam, appellants filed suit against Collins, alleging medical malpractice. Subsequently, appellants received a judgment for $360,000 after a jury trial on that cause. However, appellants were not able to collect the full extent of their judgment against Collins, since he possessed neither medical malpractice insurance nor personal or other assets sufficient to cover the amount of the judgment.

Appellants then filed this action against the hospital, as well as the association of staff physicians who assigned Collins to treat Mr. Beam. After the trial court granted the hospital's motion to dismiss, appellants filed an amended complaint in November 1983. The hospital responded with a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, raising as defenses the statute of frauds, the statute of limitations, and failure of the amended complaint to state a cause of action. The trial court granted this motion with prejudice, without stating the basis for its decision.

Appellants raise three grounds which they claim entitle them to reversal of the trial court's order. First, they contend that the hospital's voluntary assumption of control over Mr. Beam created a duty owed him by the hospital to avoid all reasonably foreseeable harm. In this regard, appellants argue that since medical malpractice by a staff physician is a foreseeable consequence of any medical care rendered, the hospital should be held to a standard of care requiring it to demand that its staff carry medical malpractice insurance. Second, appellants contend, assuming arguendo that their...