Fowler v. Norways Sanitorium
| Decision Date | 17 June 1942 |
| Docket Number | 16814. |
| Parties | FOWLER v. NORWAYS SANITORIUM et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Stark & Manifold and Judson L. Stark, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Murray & Mannon, of Indianapolis, for appellees.
By this action the appellant, Elma Fowler, administratrix of the estate of Peter B. Fowler, deceased, sought to recover damages alleged to have resulted to the widow and minor children of her decedent because of his wrongful death. Appellant claimed that his death resulted because of negligent acts of the appellees, Norways Sanitorium and Carl Jones, and of their codefendant Dr. Philip B. Reed, in failing to care for, guard, safeguard, and protect him while he was a patient at such sanitorium.
At the close of the introduction of appellant's evidence, the appellees and Dr. Reed moved the court for a directed verdict which motion was sustained, and the jury was instructed to and did return a verdict for all of the defendants. The action of the trial court in giving such peremptory instruction is the error upon which appellant relies for reversal.
After the filing of appellant's brief the action against Dr Philip B. Reed was dismissed by appellant.
The amended complaint of appellant alleged in substance the following facts:
That Peter B. Fowler died intestate at Indianapolis, Indiana, on August 8, 1939, and left him surviving his widow, Elma F Fowler, and his four minor children, all of whom were wholly dependent upon him for support; that the defendant, Norways Sanitorium, is a corporation engaged in the business of treating and caring for persons suffering from mental and nervous disturbances, and that it is an institution equipped with doctors, nurses, attendants, assistants and guards. That on August 5, 1939, Peter B. Fowler was taken to such sanitorium for entry as a patient and was received and examined by Dr. Philip B. Reed; that thereupon he was accepted as a patient for treatment. That on Tuesday, August 8, 1939, appellee, Norways Sanitorium, and Dr. Reed caused the appellee, Carl Jones, who was an attendant and employee of Norways Sanitorium, who had been assigned to the care and supervision of Peter B. Fowler, to take him to the office of a doctor on the seventh floor of the HumeMansur building in the city of Indianapolis so that certain X-ray pictures could be made; that while in such office Peter B. Fowler eluded his attendant and guard and leaped through an open window and plunged to the street below causing his death. It is alleged that at the time Fowler entered the sanitorium he had suicidal tendencies and on two previous occasions had attempted to commit suicide, which facts were known to Dr Reed and the appellees, Norways Sanitorium and Carl Jones.
The essentials of the negligence charged in the amended complaint may be summarized as follows: Negligence of each of the defendants in taking Peter B. Fowler from a safe place to an extra dangerous place, namely, the X-ray offices of Dr. Beeler which were on the seventh floor of the Hume-Mansur building where there were open and unprotected windows with only one guard and without extra precautions for his safety; and negligence in guarding and protecting him while he was in such X-ray offices.
There is practically no conflict in the testimony introduced by appellant to sustain the allegations of her complaint. The evidence showed that Fowler was taken to the Norways Sanitorium because he was suffering from mental depression and had twice attempted to commit suicide. The arrangements for his entry were made by his brother, a sister, and his wife. When he arrived at the institution he was examined by Dr. Reed who was a resident physician of the sanitorium, but who was also engaged in the private practice of neurology and psychiatry. Assurances were given by Dr. Reed that there were facilities at the sanitorium for the care of the patient, and that he did not think it would be necessary for him to remain there for a long period and that he felt that his condition could be improved. A charge of $115 for the first week's treatment was specified by the sanitorium and this was paid. Arrangements were made for constant guarding of the patient and this work was assigned to the appellee, Carl Jones, who was twenty-three years of age, had gone to high school for two years and had gone to the sanitorium to work about three months previous to the entrance of Fowler. This attendant was on twenty-one hour duty with Fowler and he had been informed that he had suicidal tendencies and that he must watch him closely.
On August 8, 1939, Jones took Fowler to Dr. Beeler's office on the seventh floor of the Hume-Mansur building at the direction of Miss Bryan, head nurse at the sanitorium. She told him to take him there in a cab and the office furnished the money. Miss Bryan directed Jones to watch him closely.
Jones testified that he did not recall Dr. Reed talking to him at all that day and that no one suggested that he have an assistant or that he use any device to keep the patient under control, and that he used none. Jones took the patient to the seventh floor of the Hume-Mansur building and after arriving there the patient removed his shirt and was taken into the X-ray room for chest and sinus pictures, and then to the dental X-ray room where the nurse took an X-ray of his teeth. At this time the attendant had a chair nearby and just south of a door that led to a hall and about two feet from the patient. Fowler arose from the chair apparently to stretch and then suddenly turned, dashed through the door to a middle room, slamming the door behind him. When the attendant got through the door and into the middle room Fowler was going through a large open window. The attendant grabbed his trouser cuff but could not restrain him, and Fowler fell to the sidewalk below, the fall causing his death.
The two questions involved in this appeal may be stated as follows:
1. Was there any evidence from which a jury might properly have determined that the acts of Norways Sanitorium and of Carl Jones, its attendant, in taking appellant's decedent to the seventh floor of the Hume-Mansur building, or their acts in guarding and protecting him while he was there located, were administrative or ministerial acts of the sanitorium instead of medical acts of Dr. Philip B. Reed in connection with his treatment of decedent?
2. If such acts of Norways Sanitorium and its attendant were administrative or ministerial acts for which the sanitorium and its attendant would be liable if negligently performed, is there sufficient evidence of negligence in the performance thereof to permit the case to be submitted to a jury?
It was stipulated by the parties that the appellee, Norways Sanitorium, was a private corporation operating for profit. This is of much importance for different principles are applied in determining the liability of hospitals or sanitoriums for their torts when the hospital or sanitorium is a public or charitable institution, than are applied when it is a private institution conducted for profit.
It will not be necessary for us to discuss the applicable rules when a cause is taken from a jury at the close of plaintiff's evidence and a motion of the defendant for a directed verdict is sustained. For a discussion thereof we call attention to the cases of Monfort v. Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co., 1920, 189 Ind. 683, 686, 128 N.E. 842, and Tabor v. Continental Baking Co., 1941, Ind.App., 38 N.E.2d 257.
A corporation or an individual, which is the owner or proprietor of a private hospital or sanitorium which is operated for profit and not as a charity, is liable in damages for injuries to its patients proximately resulting from the negligence of its officers or employees while performing administrative or ministerial acts. 26 Am.Jur., Hospital and Asylums, § 14 p. 595 and cases there cited; Stuart Circle Hospital Corp. v. Mrs. Zenophine Curry, 1939, 173 Va. 136, 3 S.E.2d 153, 124 A.L.R. 176; Annotation in 124 A.L.R. on page 186; Hendrickson v. Hodkin, 1937, 276 N.Y. 252, 11 N.E.2d 899; Annotations in 22 A.L.R. 341 and 39 A.L.R. 1431.
While a hospital or sanitorium conducted for private gain is not an insurer of its patients against injuries inflicted by them it is required to use ordinary care in the treatment and care thereof. In determining ordinary care in such cases it is proper to consider the physical and mental ailments of the patient which may affect his ability to look after his own safety. Hawthorne v. Blythewood, Inc., 1934, 118 Conn. 617, 174 A. 81; Flower Hospital v. Hart, 1936, 178 Okl....
To continue reading
Request your trial