Dooley v. Richland Memorial Hosp., 22180

• Decision Date: 17 October 1984
• Docket Number: No. 22180,22180
• Citation: 283 S.C. 372,322 S.E.2d 669
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Colie DOOLEY and Lorraine Dooley, Respondents, v. RICHLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant. . Heard

Page 669

322 S.E.2d 669

283 S.C. 372

Colie DOOLEY and Lorraine Dooley, Respondents, v. RICHLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant.

No. 22180.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Oct. 17, 1984.

Decided Nov. 8, 1984.

Charles E. Carpenter, Jr., and William H. Hensel, of Richardson, Plowden, Grier & Howser, Columbia, for appellant.

Francis T. Draine, of Draine & McLaren, P.A., Columbia, for respondents.

GREGORY, Justice:

This is an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars in favor of respondents Colie and Lorraine Dooley. Richland Memorial Hospital appeals. We reverse.

On August 2, 1979, respondents' son, Doug, drove B.B. Smith and Tommy Metts to purchase a keg of beer. The three friends were in Doug's car. After they purchased the beer, they made another stop. While Doug was away from the car, the two passengers drove off. When Doug discovered this, he simply hitched a ride to his trailer, failing to report to anyone that B.B. and Tommy had taken his car.

Shortly after midnight, the Lexington County Emergency Medical Service was summoned to a single car accident. The two occupants were unconscious. The car had to be pried apart with "jaws" and cut in order to remove the driver from the wreckage. Both occupants were taken to Richland Memorial Hospital in serious condition.

The driver had no identification; however, law enforcement officials found Doug Dooley's identification in the car. They concluded that the driver was Doug Dooley, the owner of the car and reported this information to emergency room personnel at Richland Memorial.

At approximately 3:00 a.m., respondents were called and told that their son had been seriously injured in an auto accident. The caller identified himself as Officer Smith. The Dooleys immediately came to the hospital.

A social worker met with Mr. and Mrs. Dooley at the hospital. She explained the serious nature of their son's injuries. The patient was scheduled for surgery; however, the Dooleys were allowed to see him. Hospital personnel were working on the patient when the Dooleys went in. Respondents stood at the foot of the stretcher and later testified that they were unable to see his face; however, they noticed that the patient had no beard. They assumed that Doug's beard had been shaved in preparation for surgery.

The social worker spent a great deal of time with the Dooleys that night. At one point, Mrs. Dooley told her that Doug was 32 years old. The social worker commented that he looked much younger.

Some seven hours after the initial call to the respondents, hospital personnel discovered that the driver had been misidentified. Mr. Dooley and Doug's girlfriend confirmed this. The driver was then identified as B.B. Smith, one of the passengers who had taken Doug's car earlier. This action followed.

The crux of the Dooley's complaint is that the hospital negligently misidentified their son, thereby causing the Dooleys to suffer severe emotional distress. Though this Court has recognized a cause of action for emotional distress where the defendant's conduct is intentional or reckless, Ford v. Hutson, 276 S.C. 157, 276 S.E.2d 776 (1981), this case differs because it is based on simple negligence.

The recognition and scope of a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is subject to much debate among legal scholars. See Nolan and Ursin, Negligent Infliction of Emotional...