Bruce v. Henry Ford Hosp.

• Decision Date: 01 June 1931
• Docket Number: No. 6,April Term.,6
• Citation: 236 N.W. 813,254 Mich. 394
• Parties: BRUCE v. HENRY FORD HOSPITAL et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

254 Mich. 394

236 N.W. 813

BRUCE

v.HENRY FORD HOSPITAL et al.

No. 6, April Term.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 1, 1931.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Vincent M. Brennan, Judge.

Action by Elizabeth Bruce against Henry Ford Hospital and others. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant hospital, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Argued before BUTZEL, C. J., and WIEST, CLARK, McDONALD, POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, and FEAD, JJ.Davidow & Davidow, of Detroit, for appellant.

Longley & Middleton, of Detroit, for appellee Henry Ford Hospital.

SHARPE, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages alleged to have been caused by acts ‘of gross negligence and mistreatment and malpractice’ of the defendants and their agents while she was in their care and under treatment in the defendant hospital. The trial resulted in a disagreement of the jury. The defendant hospital thereafter moved for judgment upon the evidence and proofs submitted, and judgment was thereupon entered in its favor, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 73, Pub. Acts 1927 (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14535). Plaintiff seeks review by writ of error.

Counsel for appellant have failed to comply with the requirements of Michigan Court Rule No. 69. We do not strike their brief from the files for this reason, but our action in this respect must not be treated as a precedent. The rule must be complied with.

The question presented is whether the hospital is liable to a patient for malpractice of its surgeons. In opening the argument in their brief, plaintiff's counsel say: ‘It is the contention of plaintiff in this cause that the defendant Henry Ford Hospital is not an eleemosynary institution. That is not a charitable organization. That while it is a corporation organized not for pecuniary profit, it does not come within the law of charitable organizations, and, therefore, it is liable for negligent acts of its employees and agents within the scope of their employment.’

If it is a charitable organization, decision is controlled by the holding of nonliability in Downes v. Harper Hospital, 101 Mich. 555, 60 N. W. 42, 43,25 L. R. A. 602, 45 Am. St. Rep. 427, and Pepke v. Grace Hospital, 130 Mich. 493, 90 N. W. 278. To determine this question, we must look to the manner in which it was organized and the way it has always been conducted. This hospital was incorporated on August 18, 1915, under Act No. 171, Pub. Acts 1903, entitled ‘An Act for the incorporation of associations not for pecuniary profit.’ Its purposes, as set forth in its articles of incorporation, are: ‘To construct, complete, equip, maintain and conduct a hospital for the care and relief of indigent and other sick, infirm or injured persons, and the treatment of maternity cases; the study and teaching of the cause, nature, prevention and cure of various diseases, and the dissemination of knowledge relating thereto, and the erection, equipment and maintenance of all buildings and laboratories necessary or incidental thereto, upon land situated in the City of Detroit, in the County of Wayne, Michigan, and this day conveyed by Henry Ford to said corporation, in trust for said purposes.’

The incorporators were Henry Ford, Edsel B. Ford, Clara J. Ford, Ernest G. Liebold, and Frank J. Sladen, the first four of whom were named as trustees or directors. By-laws were adopted providing for annual and special meetings; for the election of a board of four trustees, who should manage and control the business and property of the corporation; for filling vacancies in such board; for the duration of their term of office, and for the election of officers and prescribing their duties.

The money with which the hospital was built was contributed by Mr. and Mrs. Ford and their son, Edsel B. Ford. Their contributions up to and including the year 1927 (trial was had in 1928) amounted to over $12,000,000, of which about one-third was represented by operating deficit. The deficit for the year 1927 was $718,508.48. No other contributions have been received.

The word ‘charity’ was defined by Mr. Justice Cooley in Allen v. Duffie, 43 Mich. 1, 7, 4 N. W. 427, 431,38 Am. Rep. 159, as follows: ‘Charity is active goodness. It is doing good to our fellow men. It is fostering those institutions that are established to relieve pain, to prevent suffering, and to do good to mankind in general, or to any class or portion of mankind.’

In Words and Phrases, First, Second, and Third Series, under the heading ‘Charity,’ many definitions of this word will be found. That it has a well-understood meaning may be implied from the use of the word ‘charitable,’ without defining it, in connection with the word ‘hospitals' in article 8, section 11, of our state Constitution, and in many of our statutes. It has a much broader significance when so used than in common parlance, when we are likely to apply it to almsgiving alone, and it ‘embraces the improvement and promotion of the happiness of man.’ New England Sanitarium v. Inhabitants of Stoneham, 205 Mass. 335, 91 N. E. 385, 387. The test as applied to a gift is whether it is charitable in its nature.

In Downes v. Harper Hospital, supra, it appeared that the organization had its origin in two deeds conveying property to certain persons in trust. The purpose was stated therein to be: ‘The institution, erection, and maintenance of a hospital in the city of Detroit, or in the immediate vicinity thereof, for the succor, care, and relief of such aged, sick, and poor persons who shall apply for the benefit of the same, and who shall seem to my trustees hereof to be...