Grawunder v. Beth Israel Hosp. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 26 February 1935 |
| Citation | 266 N.Y. 605,195 N.E. 221 |
| Parties | Mita GRAWUNDER, Appellant and Respondent, v. BETH ISRAEL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Respondent and Appellant, Impleaded with Another. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Cross-appeals by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (242 App. Div. 56, 272 N. Y. S. 171), entered June 26, 1934, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The defendant appealed from each and every part of such judgment, and the plaintiff appealed only from so much thereof as affirmed the order of the Trial Term reducing the verdict from $2,000 to $1,000. The action was brought by plaintiff, the widow and only next of kin of Julius Grawunder, deceased, against the defendant Charles Goodman, a physician and surgeon employed by plaintiff's husband, and against the defendant Beth Israel Hospital to recover for an unauthorized post mortem operation or autopsy performed upon the body of her husband. During the trial the action was discontinued against the defendant Goodman and proceeded against the defendant hospital. The trial justice, in denying a motion by defendant to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, held that the evidence clearly showed that the body was mutilated while in the exclusive possession and control of the hospital, and that, in the absence of proof by the defendant that some person pursuing an independent calling and not acting under the authority or direction of the hospital performed the autopsy, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, even though the plaintiff did not furnish proof as to who did the unlawful act.
Francis L. Driscoll, Lorenz J. Brosnan and Lloyd Paul Stryker, all of New York City, for defendant, respondent, and appellant.
Carsten H. Ludder, of Flushing, for plaintiff, appellant, and respondent.
Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shipley v. City of N.Y.
...an "unlawful mutilation" ( Grawunder v. Beth Israel Hosp. Assn., 242 App.Div. 56, 60–61, 272 N.Y.S. 171 [2d Dept.1934], affd. 266 N.Y. 605, 606, 195 N.E. 221 [1935] ). However, the autopsy in this instance, as conceded by the Shipleys, was plainly authorized. Indeed, there is nothing in our......
-
Shipley v. City of N.Y.
...an “unlawful mutilation” (Grawunder v. Beth Israel Hosp. Assn., 242 App.Div. 56, 60–61, 272 N.Y.S. 171 [2d Dept.1934], affd. 266 N.Y. 605, 606, 195 N.E. 221 [1935] ). However, the autopsy in this instance, as conceded by the Shipleys, was plainly authorized. Indeed, there is nothing in our ......
-
Shipley v. City of N.Y.
...an “unlawful mutilation” ( Grawunder v. Beth Israel Hosp. Assn., 242 App.Div. 56, 60–61, 272 N.Y.S. 171 [2d Dept.1934], affd.266 N.Y. 605, 606, 195 N.E. 221 [1935] ). However, the autopsy in this instance, as conceded by the Shipleys, was plainly authorized. Indeed, there is nothing in our ......
-
Kalina v. General Hospital of the City of Syracuse
...v. Lehane, 143 App.Div. 424, 128 N.Y.S. 161; Grawunder v. Beth Israel Hospital Ass'n, 242 App.Div. 56, 272 N.Y.S. 171, aff'd. 266 N.Y. 605, 195 N.E. 221; Beller v. City of New York, 269 App.Div. 642, 58 N.Y.S.2d 112; Darcy v. Presbyterian Hospital, 202 N.Y. 259, 95 N.E. 695.) The emotional ......