City of Shawnee v. Roush
| Decision Date | 11 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | 14344. |
| Citation | 223 P. 354,101 Okla. 60,1923 OK 1113 |
| Parties | CITY OF SHAWNEE v. ROUSH. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1924.
Syllabus by the Court.
The findings of a jury upon questions of fact are conclusive where the evidence reasonably tends to support such findings. Evidence examined, and held, that the findings of the jury are reasonably supported by the evidence.
A city has two classes of powers--the one legislative, public governmental, in the exercise of which it is a sovereignty and governs its people; the other proprietary, quasi private conferred upon it, not for the purpose of governing its people, but for the private advantage of the inhabitants of the city and of the city itself as a legal personality; and if the power is substantially of the latter class, the city cannot escape liability for the careful performance thereof merely because it may in some general way also relate to a function of the government.
There exists no reason in law for the courts to create an exemption of a person or association from liability for negligence of servants of such person or association, merely because such servant is employed by such master in the operation of an institution for purposes other than profit or gain.
A paying patient in a hospital conducted by a municipality may recover damages for injury done her through the negligence of attending nurses administering to her during an operation.
Appeal from Superior Court, Pottawatomie County; Leander G. Pittman, Judge.
Action by Inez Roush against the City of Shawnee. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Ross & Thurman, of Oklahoma City, and Wyatt & Waldrep, of Shawnee, for plaintiff in error.
Iris C. Saunders, of Shawnee, for defendant in error.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Pottawatomie county in favor of the defendant in error and against the plaintiff in error, for damages for personal injury in the sum of $10,495. The facts appear as follows:
The city of Shawnee maintains and operates, within its corporate limits, a hospital for the care of the sick, accepting some charity patients, but all patients able to pay for their care and treatment are charged therefor. On or about the 12th day of December, 1921, the defendant in error entered the said hospital at an agreed weekly stipend; the same being the regular rate fixed and charged by said hospital, which sum was accepted by the persons in charge thereof for the care and treatment of the said defendant in error. During the period in which the defendant in error was in said hospital an operation was performed upon her for gall bladder, and, at the conclusion of this operation, a nurse employed by said hospital, as appears to be usual and customary, administered an enema to the defendant in error. It appears that the solution so administered was so hot as to severely burn and scald the defendant in error, and for the injuries sustained she brought suit against the city of Shawnee. To the petition, the city urged three main defenses, viz.: That there was no negligence in the administering of the enema; that if there was any negligence on the part of the nurse, same was done pursuant to the orders of the attending surgeon, and the hospital would not be liable; and, lastly, that even if the nurse was negligent in preparing and administering the enema, she was acting as the agent of the hospital, and that said hospital is not operated for gain or profit, but for governmental and charitable purposes. The cause was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict for the amount in which judgment was rendered.
Neither of the first two objections, which are also urged upon this appeal, need be considered by the court, since the overwhelming weight of authority in this jurisdiction is to the effect that the question of negligence and liability are questions for the jury, and the finding of the jury will not be disturbed if it is reasonably supported by the evidence. It is so supported in this case.
The material questions of law, however, are as to the legal liability of the city of Shawnee, a municipal corporation for the negligence of an employee of a hospital operated by it in its municipal capacity and not for profit or gain. It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff in error that this latter consideration operates to create an exemption from liability on the part of the city. This contention they support by citations of two lines of authority, the first, bearing upon the proposition of the hospital...
To continue reading
Request your trial