Carlson v. Marinette County
| Decision Date | 03 July 1953 |
| Citation | 59 N.W.2d 486,264 Wis. 423 |
| Parties | CARLSON, v. MARINETTE COUNTY. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Action commenced by the plaintiff, Mona Carlson, against Marinette County, which operates the Marinette County Hospital, to recover damages for injuries sustained by plaintiff, while a patient at the hospital by reason of the negligence of an employee of the hospital. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the Defendant appeals.
Everson, Ryan, Whitney & O'Melia, Green Bay, for appellant.
Robert D. Murphy, Marinette, Kaftan, Kaftan & Kaftan, Green Bay, for respondent.
Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that Marinette County owned and operated a general hospital, which was managed by a committee of members of the Marinette County Board; that on September 30, 1948, plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract by which defendant agreed for valuable consideration to furnish to plaintiff and the surgeon employed by her, hospital facilities necessary to enable plaintiff's surgeon to perform an operation upon her; and that defendant agreed to provide a room and the usual and proper care for plaintiff immediately after the completion of the operation until such time as her surgeon advised her to leave the hospital; that such services would be performed by defendant's employees in a skillful manner according to the standard established therefor by similar institutions and by persons so trained, for the purpose of rendering such care and treatment; and in consideration of defendant's promises, plaintiff promised to pay to defendant whatever sum represented the reasonable value of said care and treatment, and the room, board and use of defendant's hospital facilities. That pursuant to said contract, plaintiff, on October 1, 1948, was operated on for hemorrhoids in said hospital; and for the purposes of the operation, an anesthesia was administered as was understood by both parties; that immediately after the operation had been performed, plaintiff was placed in one of the defendant's hospital rooms; and while she was in a helpless condition, defendant failed to care for the plaintiff as agreed, to furnish adequately trained, prudent and competent personnel to care for plaintiff, in that one of defendant's employees placed a scalding hot water bottle under the plaintiff, thereby severely burning and injuring plaintiff; that by reason of the defendant's failure to adequately and properly care for the plaintiff and to furnish competent personnel, defendant violated its agreement to provide such care; and that by reason of defendant's failure to perform said contract, the plaintiff was severely injured, and will be permanently disabled; and as a result thereof, she sustained damages in the sum of $10,000. $As a second cause of action plaintiff alleges that said hospital is operated by the defendant county for profit; that it receives a reasonable sum and makes charges for the care and treatment of all patients; that in the operation of the hospital, defendant is engaged in a competitive enterprise, the purpose of which is gain and profit, and by reason thereof, defendant is liable for the negligent acts of its employees; and that the injuries to plaintiff were caused by the negligence of defendant in that an employee of defendant placed a scalding hot water bottle under plaintiff while she was in a helpless condition following said operation.
Defendant's answer alleges that in the maintenance and operation of the hospital, defendant is engaged in a governmental function and also engaged in a charitable enterprise; that no profit from the operation thereof inures or can inure to the benefit of any private person or individual; and therefore defendant is not liable to respond in damages to plaintiff for any injuries which plaintiff may have sustained by reason of the negligence of a servant or employee of the defendant.
The jury found that defendant failed to exercise ordinary care in regard to inspecting the hot water bottle application after placing the bottle in plaintiff's bed; and that such failure was the proximate and efficient cause of the injuries complained of. The jury assessed plaintiff's damages at $234.14 for hospital and medical expenses; $1,000 for past pain and suffering; and $200 for scars. Upon motions after verdict, defendant renewed its motions for a directed verdict made at the conclusion of the evidence and moved in the alternative, if such motions were denied, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Judge Duquaine, in his decision on the motions after verdict, stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holytz v. City of Milwaukee
...hospital, although generally a proprietary activity, may have some of its operations classed as governmental. Carlson v. Marinette County (1953), 264 Wis. 423, 59 N.W.2d 486. In applying the 'governor to governed' test we have adopted some additional artificial rules regarding immunity or l......
-
Duncan v. Steeper
...to the incentive for sound management in such institutions. Respondents also place reliance upon our decision in Carlson v. Marinette County (1953), 264 Wis. 423, 59 N.W.2d 486, as interpreted in Kojis v. Doctors Hospital, supra, 12 Wis.2d at page 370, 107 N.W.2d at page 'We held that the c......
-
Bargo Foods North Inc. v. Department of Revenue
...Piper at 314, 122 N.W. at 731. Similarly, a city's operation of a hospital is a proprietary function. Carlson v. Marinette County, 264 Wis. 423, 427, 59 N.W.2d 486, 488 (1953). A municipality's operation of an airport is sufficiently analogous to those activities as to be proprietary. The w......
-
Kojis v. Doctors Hosp.
...v. Evangelical Deaconess Society, 218 Wis. 169, 260 N.W. 476 and Schau v. Morgan et al., 241 Wis. 334, 6 N.W.2d 212. Carlson v. Marinette County, 264 Wis. 423, 59 N.W.2d 486, involved an action by a paying patient in a hospital operated by Marinette county. The county pleaded immunity on th......