Butler v. Northwestern Hospital of Minneapolis
| Decision Date | 25 February 1938 |
| Docket Number | 31,485 |
| Citation | 278 N.W. 37,202 Minn. 282 |
| Parties | LOUIS N. BUTLER v. NORTHWESTERN HOSPITAL OF MINNEAPOLIS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff because of the alleged negligence of defendant hospital while plaintiff was a patient therein. The case was tried before Luther W Youngdahl, Judge, and a jury. Plaintiff had a verdict of $5,140. Defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Affirmed.
Bailment -- property intended for special use -- implied warranty of fitness.
1. One who furnishes an instrumentality for a special use or service impliedly warrants the article furnished to be reasonably fit and suitable for the purpose for which it is expressly let out, or for which, from its character, he must be aware it is intended to be used.
Bailment -- property intended for special use -- implied warranty of fitness.
2. Equipment furnished by defendant for plaintiff's use, in view of facts appearing, should be reasonably fit for the uses and purposes needed under the circumstances.
Hospital -- furnishing faulty equipment for treatment of patient -- liability.
3. Where defendant furnished faulty equipment to a patient who because of such suffered injury proximately resulting therefrom, liability could be imposed as for negligence.
Hospital -- furnishing faulty equipment for treatment of pertient -- liability.
4. If an article is furnished which is obviously unfit for the use for which intended and plaintiff's nurse used same in violation of usual standards of due care of nursing practice negligent defendant cannot be charged with injurious effects therefrom. But where, as here, defect was not patent, nurse was not required to examine into its mechanical parts for discovery of possible defects.
Negligence -- proximate cause of injury -- efficient cause.
5. As a practical matter, legal responsibility must be limited to those causes which are so close to the result, or of such significance as causes, that the law is justified in imposing liability.
Negligence -- proximate cause of injury -- intervening cause.
6. An intervening force is one which comes into active operation in producing the result, after the defendant's negligence. "Intervening" is used in a time sense; it refers to later events. Conditions existing and forces already in operation at the time of defendant's conduct are not included within the term.
Damages -- not excessive.
7. Upon facts stated in opinion, held that verdict is not excessive.
Cobb, Hoke, Benson, Krause & Faegre and Frank Janes, for appellant.
Jay W. Smith and T. M. Thomson, for respondent.
Plaintiff prevailed in his action to recover damages for injuries sustained from hot-water burns. Defendant's motion in the alternative for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial was denied, and it appeals.
November 2, 1935, plaintiff, 74 years of age, underwent an appendicitis operation at defendant hospital. That afternoon, while plaintiff was undergoing the operation, arrangements were made in his behalf for a special nurse to attend him after the operation. Following the usual practice, the hospital notified the nurses' central registering bureau (an organization which keeps a list of registered nurses and furnishes such when requested by hospitals) and procured the professional services of Mrs. Nordgren, a duly registered nurse and an alumuns of defendant's Hospital Training School. She reported for duty about 6:15. Plaintiff was brought from the operating room shortly thereafter. In the meantime, she had learned from the anesthetist that the operating surgeon wanted plaintiff to be given a "tap water" proctoclysis. That is a method by which a solution is introduced into the body drop by drop through the rectum for nourishment. The "tap water" wanted and ordered was plain water heated to 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Equipment necessary for a proctoclysis consists of a container, a standard or stand which supports the container above the level of the bed, a rubber tube, a Murphy Drip, which is a glass coupling used to enable the nurse to court the drip flow, a catheter (i.e., a rectal tube), and a screw clamp placed on the rubber tubing to regulate the flow. The equipment provided for and placed in plaintiff's room consisted of a container, a rubber rectal tube, and a spring clamp. These were among a collection of articles in a tray on the table. Mrs. Nordgren secured a standard and attempted to construct out of these articles the apparatus for proctoclysis. She filled the can with hot water and hitched it to the standard. Realizing then that the equipment was inadequate, she placed the end of the rubber tubing on the bed and went out to secure the other necessary articles. Before leaving plaintiff's bedside she fastened the spring clamp on the tubing to prevent any flow. In her absence the clamp came apart, allowing the hot water to drain from the container through the rubber tubing and onto plaintiff's bed (provided with a rubber sheet) so that his back and thighs were severely scalded. Because of a spinal anesthetic, plaintiff was insensitive from the waist down. He did not realize what happened other than that he was warm.
Plaintiff seeks to hold defendant liable on the theory that it furnished a defective spring clamp, which, because of its defective condition, caused plaintiff's injury. That is the determinative issue here. Any question of Mrs. Nordgren's agency was foreclosed by the court's charge that "the defendant cannot be held liable for any act or omission of the special nurse, Susanna Nordgren." That is the law of the case; hence the nurse must be considered as plaintiff's agent or servant. Defendant's liability, if any, must rest entirely upon the claimed breach of duty in failing to furnish an efficient clamp, and that such failure proximately resulted in plaintiff's injuries.
1. It is well established that one who furnishes an instrumentality for a special use or service impliedly warrants the article furnished to be reasonably fit and suitable for the purpose for which it is expressly let out, or for which, from its character, he must be aware it is intended to be used, 12 A.L.R. p. 774; 8 C.J.S. p. 258, § 25, and is liable to the bailee or third persons for injuries proximately resulting from any defect due to his want of due care. Dunnell, Minn. Dig. (1937 Supp.) § 731d; 8 C.J.S. p. 318, § 40.
2. Assuming, as we must, that the nurse was plaintiff's agent or servant, it follows that the involved clamp and other articles present in plaintiff's room were furnished by defendant to be used for customarily needed purposes where an important surgical operation has been performed. That obviously was the intention. And the articles so selected by defendant had to be reasonably fit therefor. Defendant's argument that "the clamp was not furnished by the hospital for use in treatment of the plaintiff" is unavailing. It is not enough to say that the purpose of the articles in the room was "unknown and unexplained." The arrangement with the hospital could mean nothing less than the furnishing of necessary facilities and equipment for the efficient operation of its business. And these must necessarily be furnished for the particular purpose for which they are needed and designed.
3. It is strongly urged that this equipment, among which was the defective spring clamp, was not furnished for use in proctoclysis. The effect of that argument is that since the use made was other than that intended, injuries arising therefrom are not attributable to any fault of defendant. With that we cannot agree. It is true, as appears from the record, that that kind of clamp is ordinarily utilized in the administration of an enema where the purpose is to allow either a full flow of the solution or to cut it off altogether. A spring clamp is ideally adapted to that purpose. On the other hand, in proctoclysis the solution is injected drop by drop, a result which can be had only by the use of a screw clamp which can be adjusted to increase or decrease the flow or shut it off completely. But the important thing as regards the intended use of the clamp is not the general treatment that is given, but rather, and only, the particular function of the clamp in any treatment, i.e., its general use, which is to shut off liquid flow through rubber tubing. Our thought is best expressed in the very words of defendant's counsel:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial