Hitchings v. Albemarle Hospital

Decision Date07 April 1955
Docket NumberNo. 6923.,6923.
Citation220 F.2d 716
PartiesMabel W. HITCHINGS, Appellant, v. ALBEMARLE HOSPITAL, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Frederick E. Martin, Jr., and Frederick E. Martin, Sr., Norfolk, Va. (W. C. Morse, Jr., Elizabeth City, N. C., on brief), for appellant.

John H. Hall, Elizabeth City, N. C., for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

DOBIE, Circuit Judge.

Mabel Hitchings brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Her complaint alleged that while she was a visitor of a paying patient in the Albemarle Hospital, she was injured in a fall from an unsafe stairway, due to the negligence of the hospital. The District Court granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment in its favor, and Mabel Hitchings has appealed to us.

From the opinion of the District Judge, we quote:

"The Court finds as facts the following:
"That this is an action for personal injuries for alleged negligence of defendant in the construction, maintenance and lighting of a stairway at the Albemarle Hospital in Elizabeth City, North Carolina; that the defendant denied liability, and pleaded, inter alia, the defense of immunity because of a governmental function; that the defendant is a non-stock, non-profit corporation, organized about 1930, under the laws of North Carolina; that Pasquotank County is a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, and the City of Elizabeth City, in said County, is a municipal corporation; that in November, 1930, a special election was held in said County and City to determine whether said two governmental agencies should jointly and equally acquire the properties, real and personal, then owned privately and known as the Albemarle Hospital, situate in said municipality and County; that a large majority of the electorate voted for said acquisition and in December of 1930 the said hospital properties, real and personal, were acquired by said City and County, the purchase price having been paid equally by said County and City, and from and with public funds; that the said County and City took title for said property in the name of the defendant herein, `as trustee for the County of Pasquotank, North Carolina, and the City of Elizabeth City, North Carolina,\' said deed being duly of record in Pasquotank County Public Registry in Book 78, page 480; that said hospital has at all times since December, 1930, been operated by and on behalf of said County and City through the defendant as their corporate agency; that the said hospital was and is managed by a Board of Trustees, who serve without pay and who are appointed jointly by the Governing bodies of said County and City, and said Board always has in its membership one person from the Board of County Commissioners of said County and one person from the membership of the Board of Aldermen of said City; that patients in the hospital are either pay-patients, part-pay patients or charity patients, including especially charity patients living in Pasquotank County and the City of Elizabeth City, one or both; that the charges made to or for said patients are fixed from time to time by said Board of Trustees; that since said December, 1930, operating deficits of the hospital and funds for capital outlay are supplied from the treasuries of said County and City, these being public funds; and that the said defendant corporation has no assets or properties of its own, other than the aforesaid title to the real and personal property which it holds as trustee for said County and City.
"The Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact on defendant\'s plea, set up in its answer, of immunity from liability because of governmental function in the establishment, regulation, maintenance and operation of said hospital and said hospital building; and the Court is of the opinion and so holds that said activities are a governmental function of said County and City, the said hospital and its properties being operated by said County and City through the defendant corporate agency; and that the defendant is immune from liability for alleged negligence herein because of governmental function; and the Court concluded that the defendant is entitled to judgment dismissing this action as a matter of law."

With this opinion we agree. The judgment of the District Court must, therefore, be affirmed.

The rule that a municipal corporation is immune to suit for negligence in the performance of a governmental function, but is liable if it is fulfilling a function of a proprietary character, seems to obtain in a majority of the States of the United States. This rule, though branded as "archaic," was reluctantly followed by District Judge Holtzoff, in the recent case of Calomeris v. District of Columbia, D.C., 125 F. Supp. 266, 268. Judge Holtzoff felt that he was "bound by the ruling in Jones v. District of Columbia, 51 App.D.C. 319, 279 F. 188". He held accordingly, that the District of Columbia was immune from liability for the death of a pay patient alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the staff of the District of Columbia General Hospital, since in operating a public hospital the municipality is acting in a governmental capacity. The cases are set out in some detail in Judge Holtzoff's opinion. See, also, 16 A.L.R.2d 1083; 25 A.L.R.2d 203 et seq.; 49 A.L.R. 381; 63 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, § 905, p. 311; 63 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations, § 777, pp. 84-85.

We must, of course, follow the law of North Carolina. No case directly in point has been found. We think, however, that the North Carolina cases show a distinct tendency to hold to the so-called majority rule, which would grant immunity in the instant case. We think, under these cases, the municipalities here were, in operating the hospital, exercising a governmental function. Certainly, the health of its citizens is a matter of grave public concern to a State, or municipal subdivisions thereof.

Now for the North Carolina cases. In Beach v. Town of Tarboro, 225 N.C....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Sides v. Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, Inc., 73
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 14, 1975
    ...is a governmental function or a proprietary one. This question is, therefore, one of first impression. But see Hitchings v. Albemarle Hospital, 220 F.2d 716 (4th Cir. 1955) (N.C. At this point, we note that this Court has held that the expenditure of tax funds for the construction of a gene......
  • Burns v. Forsyth County Hosp. Authority, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 1986
    ...tort law regarding negligence in the condition or use of the premises applicable. The patient is an invitee. See Hitchings v. Albemarle Hospital, 220 F.2d 716 (4th Cir.1955). As such, the hospital has a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition so as......
  • United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 12, 1955

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT