Fogel v. Sinai Hosp. of Detroit

• Decision Date: 20 December 1965
• Docket Number: Nos. 343,No. 1,344,s. 343,1
• Citation: 138 N.W.2d 503,2 Mich.App. 99
• Parties: Helen FOGEL, David Fogel, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SINAI HOSPITAL OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellant. Cal
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 503

138 N.W.2d 503

2 Mich.App. 99

Helen FOGEL, David Fogel, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SINAI HOSPITAL OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellant.

Cal. Nos. 343, 344.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

Dec. 20, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1966.

Charles T. McGorisk, Detroit, for appellant.

Lipton & Papista, Detroit, for appellees.

Before LESINSKI, C. J., and QUINN and WATTS, JJ.

QUINN, Judge.

Plaintiffs brought these actions to recover damages allegedly arising from the negligence of defendant. Helen Fogel claimed damages for personal injuries, pain, suffering and disability; her husband, David, claimed damages for hospital and medical expenses for Helen and for loss of consortium. Judgments entered on jury verdicts for plaintiffs, and the trial court denied defendant's motions for judgments non obstante veredicto or for new trial. Defendant appeals from denial of these motions.

Defendant claims the trial court erred in not granting its motion for directed verdict made on the basis plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case; that the trial court erred in submitting the question of permanent injuries to the jury, in permitting the mortality tables in evidence and in permitting certain medical bills in evidence.

October 15, 1961, Helen Fogel fell at home and was taken to defendant hospital for care and treatment. She was then 79 years of age. X-rays disclosed no fractures and her doctor ordered that she be encouraged to walk. By November 1, 1961, Helen Fogel was walking some and she continued to do so thereafter. Late in the evening of November 5, 1961, she signalled for a nurse to assist her to the bathroom. A nurse's aide appeared and assisted plaintiff as requested in spite of plaintiff's warning that one aide was not capable of doing so. On the way to the bathroom, plaintiff slipped, the aide could not hold her and plaintiff fell. Her hip was fractured in the fall and these actions were to recover the damages arising therefrom.

Defendant's first allegation of error is based on its contention that since there was no evidence of the skills usually exercised by hospitals in the Detroit area in the care of patients, no standard of care was established and no breach of duty was shown. Defendant's position in this regard arises from the fact that plaintiffs pleaded that defendant owed a duty to treat Helen Fogel according to such a standard; it is not supported legally. As stated in 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, at p. 966:

'Except for malpractice cases (against a doctor, dentist, etc.), there is no general rule or policy requiring expert testimony as to the standard of care, and this is true even in the increasingly broad area wherein expert opinion will be received.'

In Lince v. Monson (1961), 363 Mich. 135, 108 N.W.2d 845, the Michigan Supreme Court succinctly stated the standard in the following language:

'In the ordinary negligence case a question is presented whether an ordinary, careful and prudent person would have done as defendant did under the circumstances.'

The record here presented a jury question on defendant's negligence and it was not error to deny defendant's motions for directed verdict and for judgments n. o. v.

Defendant next claims the trial court erred in failing to give defendant's requested charge that there was no evidence of permanent injury in the...