Bondurant v. Board of Trustees of Memorial Hospital of Converse County

• Decision Date: 13 July 1960
• Docket Number: No. 2927,2927
• Citation: 354 P.2d 219
• Parties: Robert J. BONDURANT, Administrator of the Estate of Perle Oscar Bondurant, Deceased, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF CONVERSE COUNTY, Appellee (Defendant below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 219

354 P.2d 219

Robert J. BONDURANT, Administrator of the Estate of Perle Oscar Bondurant, Deceased, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF CONVERSE COUNTY, Appellee (Defendant below).

No. 2927.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 13, 1960.

Robert R. Rose Jr., and Arthur F. Fisher, of Rose, Rose & Fisher, Casper, for appellant.

Edward E. Murane, of Murane, Bostwick & McDaniel, Casper, for appellee.

Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER and HARNSBERGER, JJ.

Mr. Justice PARKER delivered the opinion of the court.

The administrator of Perle Oscar Bondurant, deceased, brought suit for $57,500 against the Board of Trustees of the Memorial Hospital of Converse County, alleging that defendant was a corporation organized under the laws of Wyoming; ¹ that deceased died on November 5, 1957, from injuries sustained on June 27 while visiting his daughter at the hospital when he opened an exit door and fell to the areaway below; and that plaintiff's claim was thereafter rejected by defendant. The answer denied generally and alleged that the screen doorway through which decedent passed was closed and fastened with three hooks, was used for ventilation, and that decedent's action in opening it was negligent. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that it was immune from the action under its status as a governmental agency. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the action with prejudice. From this order plaintiff has appealed, urging that under the circumstances of the case the defendant is not immune from tort liability.

Plaintiff failed to allege by issuable facts ² the existence of a duty upon the part of defendant toward the plaintiff and its breach ³ so as to set forth a claim for relief under Rule 8, Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, and the complaint was therefore subject to a motion to dismiss on that ground. ⁴ No such motion was interposed, and we are faced with the dilemma of either discussing a liability not pleaded or refusing to consider the problem which might later be raised if amendment of the complaint should be permitted. Although we do not wish to establish a precedent for the consideration of problems which are potential rather than actual, we feel that the claimed immunity of a county hospital from a tort action of the nature mentioned is of sufficient importance that perhaps an exception should be made in this instance.

It is insisted that the trial court erred in holding the county hospital to be immune to plaintiff's action by reason of its status as a governmental agency. Plaintiff argues that even conceding the hospital to be a state agency it is not substantially similar to departments such as the highway, the game and fish, etc., which continuously carry on state and governmental functions but is in fact more like a municipal corporation. It is then urged that a statement from Ramirez v. City of Cheyenne, 34 Wyo. 67, 241 P. 710, 714, 42 A.L.R. 245, should be here controlling:

'* * * Lately there has come to be recognized a kind of service to which there is attached neither the immunity of the state nor the liability of business corporations. This is the service rendered by bodies administering public charities. To such bodies the law as established in many jurisdictions, including ours, grants a partial exemption from tort liability. The exemption, we understand, applies where the charity is sought to be charged with the negligence of its employees, but does not affect its liability for failure to perform its personal, nondelegable duties, such as the duty of using care in selecting its employees and in keeping its premises safe for invitees. * * *'

Without passing upon the limited areas to which the quoted Ramirez philosophy is applicable, we find no case in which a hospital has been held liable on that basis, and we are not inclined to believe that the analogy is apt. Neither do we think that Bishop Randall Hospital v. Hartley, 24 Wyo. 408, 160 P. 385, Ann.Cas.1918E, 1172, is persuasive in the instant situation since that hospital was clearly a charitable organization and bore no relationship to the government whatever.

It is maintained that under § 18-320, W.S.1957, a county memorial hospital is a charitable organization on the face of the enactment apparently because the statute contains a statement that:

'* * * It * * * shall furnish free to such persons being residents of the county as have no means to pay for the same all necessary facilities and maintenance during the time that such persons without means may be required to remain there * * *.'

This provision must, of course, be read with the remainder of the section which provides:

'* * * so long as a county board of public welfare shall be functioning in said county * * * and * * * [certain] taxes required * * * the resulting funds in control of said board for hospitalization purposes shall be deemed 'means' for payment of resident indigent hospitalization * * *.'

Also, we must bear in mind the purpose of the legislature in the original passage of the hospital Act wherein it was entitled, ⁵ 'An Act to promote the public welfare by encouraging the establishment and maintenance of public Memorial County Hospitals.'

In War Memorial Hospital of District No. 1, Park County v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Park, 73 Wyo. 371, 279 P.2d 472, 475, we said that governmental functions are those conferred or imposed on the municipality as a local agency of limited and prescribed jurisdiction, to be employed in administering the affairs of the State, and promoting the public welfare generally. While we were there discussing a municipal corporation, the same definition is equally valid in determining the character of county activities. ⁶ The legislature having undertaken to promote the public welfare, we cannot lightly nullify its efforts. We should not perhaps leave the War Memorial Hospital case...