Danville Com. Hospital v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 03 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 3226. |
| Citation | 186 Va. 746 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | DANVILLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. v. LINDA THOMPSON, AN INFANT, ETC. |
Present, Hudgins, Gregory, Eggleston, Spratley and Buchanan, JJ.
1. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Charitable Hospital — Evidence Showing Hospital Was Not Charitable Institution — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for a burn suffered by plaintiff at the time she was born in defendant hospital, the hospital defended on the ground that it was a charitable institution. It was a stock company chartered in the usual way, with capital stock, divided into shares. Its purposes stated in its charter included no suggestion of charitable objectives; each share of stock entitled the owner to receive hospital service without cost; and charter provided for reinvestment of earnings and the hospital did not hold itself out as a charitable institution but entered a charge against every patient and collected if it could.
Held: That it was clear that defendant was not a charitable institution.
2. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Charitable Hospital — Hospital Operated by Corporation and Charging for Services. — A hospital owned and operated by a corporation created by the voluntary agreement of private individuals, which issues stock investing its stockholders with the usual rights and, in addition, the valuable right to free hospital services, is managed and governed by officers and agents selected by the stockholders, and enters a charge against its patients for its services which it collects when it can, is not a charitable institution and not entitled to the immunities generally accorded to such institutions.
3. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Charitable Hospital — Test. — The test which determines whether a hospital is charitable or otherwise is its purpose, that is, whether or not it is maintained for gain, profit or advantage, and the question as to its character may be determined not only from the powers and purposes as defined in its articles of incorporation or charter but also from the manner in which it is conducted.
4. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Burn to New-Born Baby — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Circumstances Warranting Instruction - Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for a burn suffered by plaintiff at the time she was born in defendant hospital, the court instructed the jury that where a person received injuries from some means or instrumentality in the control of the defendant which does not ordinarily occur where reasonable care is used by the defendant, and the injury occurs under such circumstances that the defendant should have the means of determining how it occurred and the cause thereof and the plaintiff does not have this information, then the jury may infer that the injury was due to some negligence of the defendant. The evidence was that the child was burned between the time it was taken from the delivery room and the discovery of the burn next morning in the nursery; in all of that period the baby was in the sole possession of defendant's employees and the methods and instruments used in its care were in their exclusive control; defendant presented no evidence to show that it exercised any care at all in handling the baby after the nurse who put it in the nursery left; it offered no explanation of how the burn occurred and its only evidence was that it did not know how it happened.
Held: That it was not error to tell the jury that they might infer that the injury was due to some negligence of defendant.
5. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Torts — Duty Owed by Private Hospital to Patient. — A private hospital, conducted for profit, owes to its patients such reasonable care and attention for their safety as their mental and physical condition, if known, may require. The care to be exercised should be commensurate with the known inability of the patient to take care of himself.
6. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Torts — Res Ipsa Loquitur. — In a proper case, a plaintiff may be aided in establishing a breach of the duty owed by a private hospital to its patients by a legal inference of negligence from proved facts. He may show a situation to which the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies.
7. NEGLIGENCE — Res Ipsa Loquitur — When Doctrine Applies. — The res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies in negligence cases where the instrumentality which caused an injury is within the exclusive possession and control of the person charged with negligence, and such person has, or should have, exclusive knowledge of the way that instrumentality was used, and the injury would not ordinarily have occurred if it had been properly used.
8. NEGLIGENCE — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Necessity for Reasonable Evidence of Negligence. — In order for the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to apply there must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen, if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.
9. NEGLIGENCE — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Doctrine Is an Evidential Presumption. — The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is an evidential presumption, not to be invoked to overcome evidence, but to be applied in its absence.
10. NEGLIGENCE — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Plaintiff Not Relieved of Burden of Proof. — The application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proof to establish the defendant's negligence.
11. NEGLIGENCE — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Not Limited to Cases Involving Particular Activity. — There is no good reason why the application of the rule of res ipsa loquitur should be limited to cases involving a particular activity, and it should apply wherever the essential reasons for its being exist.
12. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Burn to New-Born Baby — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Proper Instruction — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for a burn suffered by plaintiff at the time she was born in defendant hospital, the court instructed the jury that where a person received injuries from some means or instrumentality in the control of the defendant which does not ordinarily occur where reasonable care is used by the defendant, and the injury occurs under such circumstances that the defendant should have the means of determining how it occurred and the cause thereof and the plaintiff does not have this information, then the jury may infer that the injury was due to some negligence of the defendant; that in the absence of evidence satisfactorily showing freedom from negligence the jury might find a verdict for plaintiff, but, on the whole case, the jury must believe from the preponderance of the evidence that the injury was due to the negligence of defendant. The evidence was that the child was burned between the time it was taken from the delivery room and the discovery of the burn next morning in the nursery; in all of that period the baby was in the sole possession of defendant's employees and the methods and instruments used in its care were in their exclusive control; defendant presented no evidence to show that it exercised any care at all in handling the baby after the nurse who put it in the nursery left; it offered no explanation of how the burn occurred and its only evidence was that it did not know how it happened.
Held: That the instruction properly stated the application and the limitation of the rule as applied to the evidence in the case, and it was proper to tell the jury that an inference existed in favor of plaintiff in the absence of any explanation from defendant.
13. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Burn to New-Born Baby — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Plaintiff Not Required to Exclude Every Possibility that Defendant Not Responsible — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for a burn suffered by plaintiff at the time she was born in defendant hospital, the burn was discovered on the day after birth and the attending physician testified that in his opinion it was caused by a hot water bottle. Defendant objected to an instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur on the ground that by possibility the burn might have occurred in a resuscitator bassinet in the delivery room, for which plaintiff's physician might have been responsible.
Held: That the objection was without merit since that was not the evidence and plaintiff was not required to exclude every possibility that the injury might have been caused through some means for which defendant was not responsible.
14. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Burn to New-Born Baby — Res Ipsa Loquitur — Objection to Instruction on Ground Injury Might Be Attributed to Cause for Which Defendant Not Responsible — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action to recover damages for a burn suffered by plaintiff at the time she was born in defendant hospital, the court instructed the jury that where a person received injuries from some means or instrumentality in the control of the defendant which does not ordinarily occur where reasonable care is used by the defendant, and the injury occurs under such circumstances that the defendant should have the means of determining how it occurred and the cause thereof and the plaintiff does not have this information, then the jury may infer that the injury was due to some negligence of the defendant; that in the absence of evidence satisfactorily showing freedom from negligence the jury might find a verdict for plaintiff, but, on the whole case, the jury must believe from the preponderance of the evidence that the injury was due to the negligence of defendant. The evidence was that the child was burned between the time it was taken from the delivery room...
To continue reading
Request your trial