Hitchings v. Albemarle Hospital
Decision Date | 07 April 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 6923.,6923. |
Citation | 220 F.2d 716 |
Parties | Mabel W. HITCHINGS, Appellant, v. ALBEMARLE HOSPITAL, Appellee. |
Court | U.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.
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:
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-
Sides v. Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, Inc., 73
...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.
...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