Gartman v. City of McAllen
| Decision Date | 21 July 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 1708-6950.,1708-6950. |
| Parties | GARTMAN et ux. v. CITY OF McALLEN et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
On appeal by the City of McAllen and the Medical Protective Company, defendants in error, from a judgment rendered against them by the district court in favor of plaintiffs in error, W. T. Gartman and wife, for damages on account of personal injuries suffered by Mrs. Gartman, through the negligence of a nurse, while a paying patient in a hospital owned and operated by the city, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the city and the indemnity company. 81 S.W.(2d) 147.
Application for writ of error, at first refused, was granted on rehearing on account of the pendency of City of Dallas v. Smith (Tex.Com.App.) 107 S.W.(2d) 872, this day decided, involving the same question.
After careful examination of all of the evidence in the statement of facts as to the purpose for which the hospital was established and the manner of its maintenance and operation, we agree with the conclusion of the Court of Civil Appeals that, according to the undisputed evidence, the hospital was established, maintained, and operated by the city for the benefit of the public and the community, to take care of the sick and afflicted, and not for the purpose of profit or revenue to the city. A summary of the facts supporting this conclusion is set out in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals.
It follows, for the reasons given and upon the authorities cited in the opinion in the case of City of Dallas v. Smith, that the City of McAllen was exercising a governmental power in the maintenance and operation of the hospital and is not liable for the act of negligence of its employee.
The fact that the city was not required to establish and maintain a hospital but voluntarily exercised the power does not change the nature of the power. The maintaining of such hospital was the exercise of a power...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Corsicana v. Wren
...v. Quinones, 142 Tex. 282, 177 S.W.2d 259; City of Fort Worth v. George, Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 929, writ refused; Gartman v. City of McAllen, 130 Tex. 237, 107 S.W.2d 879; 30-B Tex.Jur. 15, Municipal Corporations, § 639. On the other hand, it is equally well settled that all other munici......
-
Cone v. City of Lubbock
...v. Quinones, 142 Tex. 282, 177 S.W.2d 259; City of Fort Worth v. George, Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 929, writ refused; Gartman v. City of McAllen, 130 Tex. 237, 107 S.W.2d 879; 30--B Tex.Jur. 15, Municipal Corporations, § 639. On the other hand, it is equally well settled that all other munic......
-
Pontarelli Trust v. City of McAllen
...Tex. 237, 112 S.W.2d 1035, 114 S.W.2d 853 (1938); City of Dallas v. Smith, 130 Tex. 225, 107 S.W.2d 872 (1937); Gartman v. City of McAllen, 130 Tex. 237, 107 S.W.2d 879 (1937); City of Fort Worth v. Wiggins, 5 S.W.2d 761 (Tex.Com.App.1928); City of Fort Worth v. George, 108 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.......
-
City of Houston v. Quinones
...the public benefit. Scroggins v. City of Harlingen, supra; City of Dallas v. Smith, 130 Tex. 225, 107 S.W.2d 872; Gartman v. City of McAllen, 130 Tex. 237, 107 S.W.2d 879; City of Fort Worth v. Wiggins, Tex.Com. App., 5 S.W.2d 761; City of Amarillo v. Ware, 120 Tex. 456, 40 S.W.2d 57; City ......