Emory University v. Shadburn

• Decision Date: 29 September 1933
• Docket Number: 22672.
• Citation: 171 S.E. 192,47 Ga.App. 643
• Parties: EMORY UNIVERSITY v. SHADBURN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

171 S.E. 192

47 Ga.App. 643

EMORY UNIVERSITY v. SHADBURN.

No. 22672.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

September 29, 1933

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Private hospital owes patient reasonable care, commensurate with his known condition, in looking after patient, including reasonable care to prevent patient from any known or reasonably apprehended danger from himself due to patient's mental incapacity.

Evidence sustained finding of hospital's negligence in failing to have nurse guard patient who evidenced her delirious condition by speech and conduct, making hospital liable for injuries patient sustained in jumping out of window.

Where hospital was paid for services of special nurse placed in charge of delirious patient, nurse's negligence in leaving patient, who jumped out of window, alone held imputable to hospital.

Hospital held liable for negligence in failing to guard delirious patient who jumped out of window after special nurse went off duty, notwithstanding special nurse was patient's agent.

In suit against hospital by delirious patient who jumped out of window, where evidence authorized inference that certain hospital employees were hospital's authorized agents to keep chart, chart, showing statements made by patient during her delirium, held admissible as containing declarations of hospital and as showing hospital's knowledge of patient's condition.

Admission of hearsay testimony held harmless, where facts shown thereby appeared in testimony of other witnesses.

Charge that plaintiff could not recover for defendant's negligence if barred by her own conduct held not erroneous because not precluding recovery if plaintiff's negligence were greater than defendant's or because not stating what negligence of plaintiff would bar recovery.

Exception that charge, although giving part of Code section as to how preponderance of evidence is determined, failed to charge another part of same section, held insufficient because not showing what court charged (Civ. Code 1910, § 5732).

Error from City Court of Decatur; Frank Guess, Judge.

Suit by Ethel Shadburn against Emory University. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Bryan Middlebrooks & Carter, of Atlanta, and B. Hugh Burgess, of Decatur, for plaintiff in error.

Walter Erle Daley and W. T. Daley, both of Atlanta, and Weekes & Candler, of Decatur, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

STEPHENS Judge.

1. A private hospital in which patients are placed for treatment by their physicians, and which undertakes to care for the patients and supervise and look after them, is under the duty to exercise such reasonable care in looking after and protecting a patient as the patient's condition, which is known to the hospital through its agents and servants charged with the duty of looking after and supervising the patient may require. This duty extends to safeguarding and protecting the patient from any known or reasonably apprehended danger from himself which may be due to his mental incapacity, and to use ordinary and reasonable care to prevent it. 30 C.J. 467, 470; Phillips v. St. Louis, etc., Railroad Co., 211 Mo. 419 (5), 111 S.W. 109, 17 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1167, 124 Am.St.Rep. 786, 14 Ann.Cas. 742.

2. Where the patient, while in the care of a private hospital becomes delirious, and this condition is known to the hospital, through its agents and servants whose duty it is to care for and look after the patient, and is manifested to them by the patient's talking at random, being nervous, stating that some one in the hall is talking about her and calling her bad names, screaming for members of her family, raising up and endeavoring to hit a nurse with a water tray, endeavoring to get out of bed, saying that the hospital people are plotting against her, and that she is innocent, that those about her have given her poison but she did not take it, yelling that the nurse and the interne were trying to murder her, all of which conduct on the part of the patient is known to the agents and servants of the hospital charged with the duty of looking after and supervising the patient, the inference is authorized that the hospital authorities in charge of the patient and having knowledge of these facts should, in the exercise of due care, anticipate that the patient, should the opportunity be presented, would endeavor to leave the hospital by some means, as by jumping out of a window. Where the hospital authorities, with such knowledge, neglect and fail to guard the patient and safeguard her against harm to herself, by...