Edwards v. Grace Hosp. Soc.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1944
• Citation: 130 Conn. 568,36 A.2d 273
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: EDWARDS v. GRACE HOSPITAL SOC.

130 Conn. 568

36 A.2d 273

EDWARDS

v.GRACE HOSPITAL SOC.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 24, 1944.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; McLaughlin and Wynne, Judges.

Action by Mercie W. Edwards, executrix of the estate of Rosa Lee Harris, deceased, against the Grace Hospital Society, to recover damages for the death of the plaintiff's decedent, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, where the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's reply to its special defense was overruled, McLaughlin, J., and the issues were tried to the jury before Wynne, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. Error and new trial ordered.

Cyril Coleman, of Hartford, for appellant (defendant).

George W. Crawford, of New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

ELLS, Judge.

Rosa Harris was a patient in Grace Hospital at New Haven. During convalescence from an appendectomy she jumped from the window of a semiprivate room and suffered injuries from which she died. The complaint alleged that the sole cause of the death was the corporate neglect of the defendant in the performance of its duty to and of its agreements with Mrs. Harris in certain specified respects. The defendant denied negligence and pleaded as a special defense that it was a charitable corporation without capital stock whose members derive no profit from its operation. The plaintiff in her reply admitted the special defense, and alleged that the defendant carried contracts of insurance indemnifying it against liability to its patients for its corporate negligence and for the torts of its servants and agents in the conduct of the hospital; that by reason of such contracts of insurance a judgment for the plaintiff would not deplete the charitable trust funds of the defendant; and that the plaintiff would limit any judgment which she might recover, and the satisfaction of such judgment, to the indemnity procurable under the contracts of insurance. The defendant demurred on the ground that the fact of insurance did not impair the validity of the charitable immunity available to the defendant. The trial court treated the demurrer as raising the basic question of liability based on corporate neglect as distinguished from immunity for the neglect of employees and overruled the demurrer. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff for $4500 damages. The defendant moved that it be set aside as against the law and the evidence, and has appealed from a denial of the motion and from the judgment.

The acts of so-called corporate negligence alleged in the complaint are that the defendant failed to provide such a number of nurses, servants and employees in that part of the hospital to which it assigned the patient ‘as were able to discharge with reasonable adequacy and competency the duties of such care, treatment, oversight and supervision of the plaintiff's decedent as were then and there reasonably necessary for her safety and welfare’; that it failed to furnish in that portion of the hospital to which it assigned the patient such proper facilities and safeguards as were reasonably necessary for her care and safety; and that it failed to adopt and enforce a policy or practice whereby the patient received adequate care and oversight in accordance with its engagements and in accordance with such care and oversight as are ordinarily provided by similar hospitals in the defendant's vicinity. The defendant claims that there was no evidence upon which the jury could reasonably have found that the corporation was negligent in any one of these respects.

There was evidence from which the jury could reasonably have found the following facts: The operation was performed at about midnight on January 18, 1938, by the patient's own surgeon, who was assisted by her personal physician. The appendix was found to be gangrenous, ruptured and abscessed. The patient's convalescence was normal and uneventful, and so impressed her doctors and the hospital staff. On January 24, within half an hour after receiving nursing care and attention, bath and breakfast, without warning she threw herself out of the window of her room, which was not barred or screened. The psychosis which apparently brought about her insane act is uncommon, but is of sufficiently frequent occurrence in such cases that it is to be reasonably anticipated and guarded against. One of the outstanding characteristics is a desire to get out of bed, if in bed, or out of a room, if confined in one. It is also well-recognized by the medical profession that this condition may occur with or without warning, and as long after the operation as was the case here. All the evidence in the case was to the effect that there was no advance warning of the psychosis.

We decide the case on the basis of the claimed error in the refusal to set aside the verdict. If there was no evidence of corporate negligence reasonably warranting a verdict for the plaintiff, it will be unnecessary to decide the defendant's claim of immunity from tort liability for corporate neglect because it is an eleemosynary corporation. The...