Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n

Decision Date12 December 1950
Docket NumberNo. 47745,47745
CitationHaynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n, 45 N.W.2d 151, 241 Iowa 1269 (Iowa 1950)
PartiesHAYNES v. PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL ASS'N.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

John C. Gates, Waterloo, for appellant.

Pike, Sias, Butler & Hoxie, Waterloo, for appellee.

HAYS, Justice.

This appeal presents a single question, namely, Is a charitable institution liable for damages for the negligence of its employees in administering the Charity?

The facts are stipulated.Defendant, a corporation not for pecuniary profit and organized under what is now Chapter 504,Code 1946, I.C.A., owns and operates the Presbyterian Hospital at Waterloo, Iowa.Plaintiff, while a paying patient therein, was injured through the alleged negligence of nurses there employed.Plaintiff seeks damages on account thereof.The trial court dismissed his petition and he appeals.

This is not a case of first impression, the identical issue having been before this court on two occasions.In both instances the decision was adverse to plaintiff's claim herein, and in accord with the ruling now before us.Appellant recognizes this fact but asserts that those decisions are not in accord with the modern trend and wrong in principle and asks that we re-examine the question.

The proposition was first before this court in the case of Mikota v. Sisters of Mercy, 1918, 183 Iowa 1378, 168 N.W. 219.There we recognized the great diversity of opinion among the courts on this question and the varied reasons upon which the immunity is based, by those states granting the same.The trust theory, the implied waiver theory, the nonapplicability of the respondeat superior maxim, and the public policy theory were discussed.Without approving, or disapproving, any one of the various theories, we said, 183 Iowa at page 1382, 168 N.W. at page 220, 'We think the great weight of authority is to the effect that an institution of this kind is exempted from liability to one who comes to it and accepts the benefits of its charity, to a patient received for treatment, so far as liability is predicated on the negligence of its servants in administering the charity'.The fact that plaintiff was a pay patient was deemed to be immaterial.Recovery was denied.

The general question of immunity of charitable institutions was next before this court in the case of Andrews v. Young Mens C. A., 1939, 226 Iowa 374, 284 N.W. 186.The case differs from the instant one, in that the plaintiff, a WPA worker working on the defendant's premises, was held not to be a beneficiary of the charity.Liability due to the negligence of defendant's employees was upheld.We will refer to this case later herein.

In Servison v. Young Mens C.A., 1941, 230 Iowa 86, 296 N.W. 769, the identical situation was again before this court.In a very brief opinion and with no attempt to analyze the question, or the authorities, this court said, 230 Iowa at page 87, 296 N.W. at page 769, 'That appellant cites a large number of authorities which we are not called on here to analyze.This case is ruled by Mikota v. Sisters of Mercy, 183 Iowa 1378, 168 N.W. 219, which sustains the ruling of a trial court'.Liability was denied.

Thus in the two instances where this precise question has been before this court it has recognized the great diversity of opinion among the courts on this question, and likewise the varied and different reasons which have been assigned by the courts as a basis for granting immunity.It then accepted what it deemed to be the majority rule, as the rule in Iowa, without determining and adopting a specific basis or reason therefor.

In Andrews v. Young Mens C.A., supra, this court, Justice Bliss speaking, made an exhaustive analysis of the various theories, both pro and con, advanced by the different courts and denied the immunity claim.While the facts therein are different in that the plaintiff was held not to be a beneficiary of the charity, as in the instant case, it is clear that this court deemed the entire question of immunity to be before the court, as it said, 226 Iowa at pages 382-383, 284 N.W. at page 191.'The appellant claims the right to this exemption and bottoms the existence of this immunity upon all of the above stated theories, advocated as the foundation for it, towit: (1) The trust fund theory; (2) The nonapplicability of the rule of respondeat superior to it; (3) The waiver theory; and (4) The public policy theory.It is thus apparent that the question of the immunity of a public charity institution for its negligence, in all of its relations, and in all of its phases, is before us.'

The 'trust fund' theory, the oldest and perhaps the Granddaddy of them all, is that the institution was created by donations for strictly charitable use.To make such funds subject to damages on account of the negligence of its employees, is to deplete the funds and thwart the purpose of the donors.

The 'nonapplicability of the respondeat superior maxim' theory is that the corporation, being not for pecuniary profit, receives no benefits from the work of its employees.

The 'waiver' theory is that one who becomes a beneficiary of the charity does so with knowledge that the assets of the institution are not available in damages, in the event of injury through the negligence of its employees.

The 'public policy' theory is that it is deemed better for the public at large, that the individual bear his injury, rather than that the institution should be liable in damages.

After a careful analysis of each theory, it is said, again referring to the Andrews case, 226 Iowa at page 412, 284 N.W. at page 206, 'The various doctrines which have been advocated in support of the immunity which we are considering, other than the public policy theory, have little of inherent or real merit to recommend them.They are but legal fictions which the courts have announced to make effective an immunity which they have conceived to be a demand of sound public policy.'Thus in so far as immunity of charitable institutions for negligence of its employees is recognized in this state, it is based on the public policy theory.While 226 Iowa at page 384, 284 N.W. at page 192we say: 'The next question for determination is whether the deceased was a beneficiary of the charity * * *.For if he was such a beneficiary, then that is an end of this case under the authority of the Mikota case, and of the majority of the authorities in this country', an examination of the authorities lead to the conclusion that the so-called 'majority of the authorities' is indeed very slim.President...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
39 cases
  • State v. McDunn
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1950
    ...45 N.W.2d 151 STATE v. McDUNN. No. Supreme Court of Iowa. Dec. 12, 1950. Patrick J. Morrow, of Onawa, and William H. Welch, of Logan, for appellant. Robert L. Larson, Atty. Gen., and Don Nise, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Defendant was indicted for the crime of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of section 321.281, Code, I.C.A., 1950. He entered a plea of not guilty. Upon trial the jury found him guilty. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and ordered...
  • Ray v. Tucson Medical Center
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 26, 1951
    ...stranger.' Since the above decision was handed down in 1942, some of the state courts have receded from their former positions of nonliability of these institutions for the torts of their servants. In the case of Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n, Iowa, 45 N.W.2d 151, 154, the Iowa Supreme Court expressly overruled two former decisions in which it had held charitable institutions immune from liability for such torts. In the above case the court criticizes the trust fund theory, the...
  • Mississippi Baptist Hospital v. Holmes
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1951
    ...cases from Alabama and Florida, respectively, Tucker v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n and Nicholson v. Good Samaritan Hospital, together with those in the cases of Georgetown College v. Hughes, Ray v. Tucson Medical Center, Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n, supra, and Foster v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Vermont, 116 Vt. 124, 70 A.2d 230, have clearly demonstrated that the four grounds hereinbefore mentioned as the sole foundation upon which the immunity doctrine in favor ofcost of affording the student the facilities of the college, and he was to that extent a recipient of charitable benefits; that is to say, the facts, at least, presented a different case to that now before us. As pointed out in the case of Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n, supra, at the outset of the theory of immunity, hospitals were relatively few in number and were created and conducted solely by funds donated by public spirited people, and therefore devoted purely to charity.courts, such as those in the case of President and Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 130 F.2d 810; Ray v. Tucson Medical Center, 72 Ariz. 22, 230 P.2d 220; Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n, 241 Iowa 1269, 45 N.W.2d 151; Tucker v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 191 Ala. 572, 68 So. 4, L.R.A.1915D, 1167; Nicholson v. Good Samaritan Hospital, 145 Fla. 360, 199 So. 344, 133 A.L.R. 809, and in numerous other decisions cited in Haynes...
  • Pierce v. Yakima Valley Memorial Hosp. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 01, 1953
    ...good. It is not quiescent but active. A policy adopted today as being in the public good, unlike the Ten Commandments, is not necessarily an ever enduring thing. As times and prospectives change, so changes the policy. * * *' Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n, 241 Iowa 1269, 1272, 45 N.W.2d 151, 153. We therefore believe it to be appropriate, after this lapse of time since Magnuson was decided, to re-examine the public policy there announced, in the light of present conditions andinsurance by the institutions. Thus it is evident that times have changed and are now changing in the business, social, economic and legal worlds. The basis for, and the need of such encouragement is no longer existent.' 241 Iowa at pages 1273-1274, 45 N.W.2d at page 154. The same basic change in conditions which is referred to in Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n, and the other cited cases, has unquestionably occurred in this state. The extent to which the people as a whole, actingGeorgetown College v. Hughes, 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 123, 130 F.2d 810; Durney v. St. Francis Hospital, Del.Super.1951, 83 A.2d 753; Wendt v. Servite Fathers, 1947, 332 Ill.App. 618, 76 N.E.2d 342; Haynes v. Presbyterian Hospital Ass'n, 241 Iowa 1269, 45 N.W.2d 151; Mississippi Baptist Hospital v. Holmes, 214 Miss. 906, 55 So.2d 142, On Suggestion of Error, 56 So.2d 709, 25 A.L.R.2d 12; Foster v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 1950, 116 Vt. 124, 70 A.2d 230, 25 A.L.R.2d...
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Inherently Incompatible: the Irreconcilable Tension Between Corporate Negligence Claims and the Federal Tort Claims Act
    • United States
    • Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review Emory University, School of Law
    • Invalid date
    ...Jefferson Hosp. Ass'n, 987 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Ark. 1999); Thompson v. Druid City Hosp. Bd., 184 So. 2d 825 (Ala. 1966); Thompson v. Mercy Hosp, 483 A.2d 706 (Me. 1984).10. See, e.g., Haynes v. Presbyterian Hosp, 45 N.W.2d 151 (Iowa 1950).11. Craig W. Dallon, Understanding Judicial Review of Hospitals' Physician Credentialing and Peer Review Decisions, 73 Temp. L. Rev. 597, 601 (2000).12. 143 N.E.2d 3 (N.Y. 1957).13. See,...